Imagine, there's no heaven

0 Kudo

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
Niall001	Re: --	#61	[url]	[-]
Posts: 897 02/14/07 11:43:36 Smarty Pants	OK, I'll try and get through as much as possible as quickly as possible. Irish: *Quote:* I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at here, but I'm going to jump in and take a guess. Are you stating atheists are no more likely to determine their own moral grounds free from dogma and doctrine than theists? Nope. But that is something I'd agree with. What I was trying to say was that if you argue that because atheists do not believe in a morality that is ultimately true, they are more likely to be flexible when it comes to negotiating with those who they do not agree with on moral matters, then an implication of that argument is that atheists would sooner compromise with NAMBALA types or other deviants. I was responding to the sentiment you expressed when you stated: *Quote:* If there were no falsely defined ultimate truth then there would be opportunity for discussion on the subject matter. What I am saying is that an implication of this would be that if you had two people in a room, an atheist and a theist, and both believed that genocide was wrong, because the theist (falsely?) believed that it was ultimately wrong to commit genocide, he would be less likely to compromise with the people who were carrying out the genocide, than the atheist would. You seemed to only notice the negative implication of a morality that incorporates religion, namely that because some religious people believe that an action is wrong in the eyes of God, then achieving a compromise with these people will be difficult and the absence of a belief in ultimate morality would lead to less conflict. I'm just pointing out that, for me, and for many others, discussion, compromise and avoiding conflict are not always good things. *Quote:* And religions prey on these minds, holding them up as some kind of goal to which the religious faithful should strive A concrete example would be nice here. No problem. Two examples of large numbers of vulnerable people sought and attained by religious zealots are: (1) children with unstable backgrounds and insecure futures, and (2) felons, largely drug and alcohol addicts. The rate of Christian and Muslim conversion in the prison systems is skyrocketing. The felon is lauded as the soul to be saved; the one who faltered once but now will follow the path of the church; the person whose life without god was a failure, but now is saved and a valuable member to society. And this is a bad thing? I'm sorry but trying to help people is not some sort of evil. We can only do our best for each-other. If you happen to think that teaching criminals, drug addicts or kids about God will help them, then you should do it! Regarding the quotations you posted from the JP2 speech, I really don't see what is so bad about anything he said. Perhaps I'm missing something, but if you volunteer to join any organisation and agree to follow the rules, then don't, then you really have to ask yourself what you're doing there. There is room for dialogue within the church, but it isn't a case of anything goes. There are rules set down around how dialogue should be conducted. *Quote:* Consider that limbo was only just recently reversed (heh, that's such a legal term) by the church. If those helpless babes, who never did a thing wrong, couldn't make it to heaven, how could our imperfect souls get there? Eck! This one annoys me whenever I encouter it. Limbo was not reversed. It never was an offical teaching. When it was stated that souls were in limbo, it simply meant that we could not speak of their status. The assumption that certain theologians made, and which was commonly adopted by the masses, was that such souls ventured off into some sort special realm where they enjoyed a state of perfect natural happiness, not supernatural mind, just natural. Now what recently happened, was not that this belief has been noted as being contrary to catholic teaching. It is a heretical belief. Nearly out of time, so I'm rushing here. SG *Quote:* Let's consider the point, now. Is it logically impossible to change one's mind? Of course not. I do it all the time! It is not equivalent to making a square circle. We change our mind in response to the input of new information. If you had all the information to begin with, would you change your mind, or could you? *Quote:* You are defining omnipotence as the ability to do anything logically possible FOR GOD to do, not the ability to do anything that is logically possible. This is infinity plus one stuff. And really it doesn't belong here. It's not something I personally want to discuss at the moment. I'm stupidly busy. Sorry. But maybe it you start a new thread elsewhere, somebody will bite. Full of Porn* http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
irishrosem	Re: --	#62	[url]	[-]
Posts: 641 02/14/07 16:42:45 OMG I'm Awesome!	Niall: What I was trying to say was that if you argue that because atheists do not believe in a morality that is ultimately true, they are more likely to be flexible when it comes to negotiating with those who they do not agree with on moral matters, then an implication of that argument is that atheists would sooner compromise with NAMBALA types or other deviants. I assume you mean NAMBLA. I agree that the idea of morality being malleable would lead to discussions about age-of-consent, and how it is determined. Therefore, anyone who develops their own moral code, be they theist or atheist, is more likely to be open to the questions NAMBLA raise. I, however, would not agree that those people would, necessarily, come to personal moral conclusions that would be unhealthy to juveniles or society at large. Nor do I think engaging these discussions would make individuals more likely to "be flexible" with necessary laws instituted to protect juveniles. (I recognize that even the idea of what constitutes "protection" of juveniles and what constitutes inhibiting their free sexual expression will need to be discussed with regard to this topic.) I'm o.k. with engaging the discussion; I encourage it. And I think the U.S. has a pretty good legal system (albeit there is always room for significant improvement) that works at navigating that discussion--as, I am sure, do other countries. I think much of the rhetoric surrounding religion inhibits that discussion. (Of course, all of this assumes your issue with NAMBLA is the 'minors having sex' issue and not the 'male on male sex' issue.) BTW, Niall, when was pedophilia decided by religion (Catholicism) to be an "ultimate wrong"? Niall: What I am saying is that an implication of this would be that if you had two people in a room, an atheist and a theist, and both believed that genocide was wrong, because the theist (falsely?) believed that it was ultimately wrong to commit genocide, he would be less likely to compromise with the people who were carrying out the genocide, than the atheist would. And how does a theist know that genocide is "ultimately wrong"? Is it because murder is wrong? How does the theist know murder is wrong? Because her god tells her so; or the Bible (substitute any holy book) tells her so; or her church (substitute any holy congregation) tells her so; or her belief in the soul, both her own and her theoretical victims', tells her so? And what makes you think that an atheist (or anyone not willing to subscribe to a religious-inspired ultimate truth) isn't able to build an equal social and moral abhorrence to murder or genocide? So now let me use your theist and atheist in this scenario: What about abortion? If the theist says abortion is morally wrong because god says so, or her church says so, or because the fetus has a soul, there is no more discussion to be had. How does the atheist respond to this? She doesn't believe the theist's god even exists, she therefore doesn't recognize any special authority in the theist's church, nor does she believe the fetus has a soul. The theist's "ultimate truth" is really not an ultimate truth; it's an ultimate truth for her, specifically. (Consider this along with garicker's well-founded claim that there is no one God, or one Religion, and I would progress this to no one "ultimate truth." And now we have hundreds of "ultimate truths" fighting it out, reducing moral arguments down to "my god said so.") Now take a discussion between two people, be they theist are atheist who are not relying on ultimate truth. They can discuss the issue of abortion, its uses in society, its implications and effects, without ever invoking, on either side, an ultimate truth. There is so much to be had in this discussion. Everything from moral issues, to gender issues, to class issues, to race issues, to state interests, to privacy rights, to when and where a person's rights begin and on and on and on. The discussion is astonishingly interesting; it can be invigorating and enlightening to peel one layer of the onion, finding dozens more layers underneath. But that discussion is rarely engaged because what is raging now is a question of religious-inspired morality vs. everyone else's morality. Niall: You seemed to only notice the negative implication of a morality that incorporates religion, namely that because some religious people believe that an action is wrong in the eyes of God, then achieving a compromise with these people will be difficult and the absence of a belief in ultimate morality would lead to less conflict. UmmmmmNo. That's absolutely wrong; I'm not really sure from where you are getting this, but I've never stated this. It is true that I think if people developed their own moral systems, free from the religious preaching, they would be more likely to discuss moral issues. These discussions would also, likely, lead to more areas for compromise, IMO. For me the "negative implication" of a religious-inspired "ultimate morality" is the encouragement of this system to allow morality to be dictated; and, the discouragement of this system to develop personal moral codes. The inability to compromise with people that assume "ultimate morality" positions is only a negative side-effect. My actual problem with "ultimate morality" is in the lack of personal responsibility and effort of such people in deciding their own moral compass. For me then, there is only negative with regard to religious-inspired morality, because the method itself, the building blocks, are corrupt. (This does not mean that no good can ever come of religious-inspired morality, just that the good does not derive from the method.) Niall: I'm just pointing out that, for me, and for many others, discussion, compromise and avoiding conflict are not always good things. I can't think of a time where discussion, constructive discussion that seeks progress and solutions, is a bad thing. I think compromise-especially being open to the possibility of compromise-though often frustrating, can be good. I don't think discussion and compromise are an attempt to avoid conflict. In fact, I think continued efforts at constructive discussion and compromise often engage conflict in a healthy way. Either way, I never stated that I wish to avoid conflict, (I personally often revel in conflict). I think maybe you are attributing something to me that someone else said. Niall: And this is a bad thing? I'm sorry but trying to help people is not some sort of evil. We can only do our best for each-other. If you happen to think that teaching criminals, drug addicts or kids about God will help them, then you should do it! Well, I never said that people shouldn't try to help others in need, nor have I said (on this thread) that they shouldn't use god in their efforts (though personally I don't think they should). You asked for examples where religion preys on weak minds, I gave you two. I don't think this a method to be applauded. I recognize I am in the minority on this. That doesn't, however, change my mind. I'm also in the minority in believing that AA/NA isn't the best method for alcoholics and addicts, even though it may be the best available method. I think AA/NA trades one addiction (alcohol and drugs) for another (meetings and sponsors). Look at the U.S. President, once addicted to drugs and liquor, now addicted to god. Is the replacement addiction 100% healthier than the prior? In the case of AA/NA, absolutely. I still don't applaud the method. And I think granting the method undue admiration, because of its many positive contributions, inhibits society from finding other, more constructive methods. (Those methods, I think, would need to address the tendency toward addiction itself. But I am no expert on the matter; these are just my personal thoughts.) Niall: Regarding the quotations you posted from the JP2 speech, I really don't see what is so bad about anything he said. Perhaps I'm missing something, but if you volunteer to join any organisation and agree to follow the rules, then don't, then you really have to ask yourself what you're doing there. I wasn't including those quotes in order to judge what JP2 had to say. It was in response to your claim: "While it is fine to think for yourself, to have your own opinions and beliefs" It is clearly not fine, if you want to call yourself a "good Catholic" to have your "own opinions and beliefs," if they are contrary to the limiting and exhaustive tenets of the Catholic Church. It is not o.k. to use birth control of any kind (including a condom); it is not o.k. to work on Sunday; it is not o.k. to participate in any homosexual act; it is not o.k. to participate in any sexual activity purely for pleasure, without making yourself open to the possibility of pregnancy; if you are female it is not o.k. to be ordained in the Church, to participate in the actual consecration of the body and blood (it used to not be o.k. for women to even serve the altar, but that's changed in my lifetime); it is not o.k. to divorce, even if you are participating in an unhealthy relationship; it is not o.k. to be a godparent if you engage in homosexuality, premarital sex or are divorced; it is not o.k. to receive communion if you engage in premarital sex or homosexuality. I am not arguing that the Church should change their restrictions, or that a person should have the right to call herself a "good Catholic" if she doesn't subscribe to all these different restrictions. I am, however, saying (and this is all I have been saying) that this does not allow for the followers of this faith, and many faiths like it, to make their own moral choices. I am saying, in contrast to your claim, it is not o.k. "to have your own opinions and beliefs" if you are a member of this religion-you must/should subscribe to the "opinions and beliefs" of the religion. Niall: There is room for dialogue within the church, but it isn't a case of anything goes. There is room for dialogue among the Pope and the Magesterium. Anyone else is automatically overridden by their "opinions and beliefs." Niall, hope your busyness is a good busy. I miss having you around, on the forum, to discuss these things.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Niall001	--	#63	[url]	[-]
Posts: 897 03/15/07 19:15:05 Smarty Pants	Irish, first off, apologies for not replying long ago. I tried twice, but something always went wrong. You\'d think I\'d learn my lesson and use word, wouldn\'t ye? Anyway, just to clear up. I quit my old job, moved home, started a new course in cognitive psychology and family life was less than blissful for a while there as well. It wasn\'t good busy, but so long as those are the worst kind of problems I have, life won\'t be treating me too badly. *Quote:* I assume you mean NAMBLA. Ha, sorry. My knowledge of NAMBLA comes mostly from watching an episode of South Park and skimming through a wikipedia article. *Quote:* I agree that the idea of morality being malleable would lead to discussions about age-of-consent, and how it is determined. Therefore, anyone who develops their own moral code, be they theist or atheist, is more likely to be open to the questions NAMBLA raise. I, however, would not agree that those people would, necessarily, come to personal moral conclusions that would be unhealthy to juveniles or society at large. Nor do I think engaging these discussions would make individuals more likely to "be flexible" with necessary laws instituted to protect juveniles. I would agree that when you develop your own moral code, you will be more open to any and all positions that had been considered deviant by society in the past, and I certainly accept that by developing your own moral code you would not necessarily come to a conclusion that would be unhealthy for the youth of society. In fact, I\'ve always leaned toward the position that theism or atheism has very little impact on the intensity with which a belief is held or the motivation it places on an individual to act in any given situation. (If that seems to contradict what I\'ve posted earlier, please keep in mind that I was responding to the argument that by virtue of believing in a God, religious people very more likely to engage in extreme negative behaviour. I\'m merely trying to show the flip side of that argument). *Quote:* BTW, Niall, when was pedophilia decided by religion (Catholicism) to be an \"ultimate wrong\"? *Quote:* And how does the theist know its wrong... I think you misunderstand me. Religions change over time. What is considered Christian morality, or Islamic Morality or Pagan (Yuck, hate the term) morality during one era will not be the same in another. When I said that (an implication of the argument presented earlier in the thread was that) atheists were more likely to compromise on moral matters than theists, I did not mean that this was because of their morality lacked a history. I simply meant that somebody who believes in a constructed morality is more likely to deconstruct that morality than somebody who believes in absolute morality, especially in circumstances where acting on the morality would be inconvenient or even dangerous. *Quote:* And what makes you think that an atheist isn\'t able to build an equal social and moral abhorrence to murder or genocide. Nothing makes me think this. Remember I\'m not asserting that atheist do not have an equal moral abhorrence to rape, murder or genocide. I\'m saying that this is an implication of the argument that a belief in a God somehow makes one more likely to behave in a negative and extreme manner. If we say that a belief in a God gives an individual extra motivation to behave in an extreme fashion, then that not only means that a religious individual will become something like a suicide bomber, it also means that they are more likely to dedicate their lives to fighting poverty etc. The argument that was presented seemed to suggest that if a person believed that something like homosexuality was wrong, then they were more likely to go around shooting homosexuals if they believed in a God than if they did not. All I\'m saying is that the flip side of that argument is that if a person believed that something like genocide was wrong, then they would be less likely to fight against it, if they were an atheist. Really, the thread has kind of went through a bit of a spiral, so its very easy to get lost. *Quote:* What about abortion..... Sorry I\'m not quoting you fully, but for some reason, I can\'t only connect to booktalk using proxyhero, which seems to disable my ability to copy and paste. I think your characterisation of religious positions is a little simplistic. I presume that is for convenience sake. But abortion probably isn\'t a good example. Abortion may be wrong in the eyes of most religions, but the same can be said of things like adultery or homosexuality. In spite of this fact, there are few religious people on the streets protesting the fact that cheating husbands have not been put in prison! The problem with abortion is that life is an imperfect concept. I am oppossed to the legalisation of abortion not because I believe it is wrong, but because I believe it involves destroying the life of another human being. I\'d no sooner support it than I would the Jewish Holocaust. I believe in ultimate morality but that does not mean that I would not other individuals the opportunity to live their lives according to different moral codes. Paraphrased *Quote:* I can\'t see a time when constructive discussion would be a bad thing. There\'s a famous quote from a developmental child psychologist (the name escapes me) who once shouted that \"Children have no time for relativism\". Look at Iraq. Now we could probably have great discussions about the criteria of just wars, the best systems of government, the causes of class conflict and everything under the sun. If we could reveal the truth of these matters, then we would be excellently placed to help the people of Iraq. But you know what, that discussion would be pretty long. In fact, we\'d probably be dead before we finished it. Sometimes, you have to act. And sometimes, it\'s best not to deconstruct morality. If you see a thief running down the road having stolen a woman\'s handbag, it\'s not the time to debate whether or not there is such a thing as private property. In relation to the religious preying on the minds of the vulnerable, I understand you better now, though it\'s probably best to emphasise the difference between religion preying on an individual\'s needs, than saying that the religious prey on the minds of the vulnerable. I really don\'t think that its helpful to describe Good Samaritans as predators. Vectors, at a stretch. As for your thoughts on AA, well the research tends to support your position. It is better than nothing, but there are better treatments available out there. *Quote:* There is room for dialogue amoung the Pope and the Magesterium, anyone else is overridden by their \"opinions and beliefs.\" Like that. There is something very frustrating about being a Catholic, and that\'s the fact that change happens at a glacial pace. But you cannot deny that change happens. The Catholic church of 2007 is a very different creature to the church of 1807. As for being overriden by the PTB, well, the best example I can think of for understanding the way the RCC works in these situation is the case of Hans Kung. Kung believes that we should have female priests, and he doesn\'t believe in papal infallability. These are hardly orthodox views, and because of them, his licence to teach as a Catholic theologian has been removed. However, he remains a Catholic Priest in \"good standing\". In fact, he remains a much admired theologian within the church. Kung will most likely end his days as a priest in \"good standing\", and he will most likely continue to further his views on things like female priests and papal infallibility. And maybe, in fifty years after he\'s passed on, his positions will become part of orthodox mainstream catholicism. When you engage in dialogue within the church, you don\'t just engage with your peers, but with the past and the future. It can be frustrating, but fools rush in.... Anyway, this post will come across a little scattered. Apologies if it is a little hard to follow, but I\'m tired, it is late, life is mad and the thread itself is a little all over the place. Regardless, it\'s always a pleasure.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Frank 013	Re: Morality	#64	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 1457 03/15/07 21:05:26 Moderator	If I had the powers of a god I could make a round square, simply redefine the definition of square to mean round. Anyway, maybe it's just me but my moral principles are not "malleable" in any sense, especially for myself. And my opinions of right and wrong are pretty much set in stone. From my personal experience I have more conviction than any theist I have ever encountered. Most of my morals are based off of the code of conduct established in karate, but honesty and good behavior was instilled in me by my family and religion had nothing to do with it. I have never smoked or done illegal drugs, these were personal moral choices that were non-negotiable for me and I have never wavered. Even though my reasoning was personal I had a better ability to resist than most of my friends, including the theists. In short I do not believe that religion offers any special benefits, (an extreme personality will remain an extreme personality) but religion does offer plenty of reasons to act badly. This is something that atheist reasoning is devoid of; there are no pre-set excuses for immoral behavior. It is true that a selfish atheist could come up with their own reasoning, but it would be difficult for them to justify that to others. My other morals are equally firm but are based off of an understanding of human nature, my desire for personal freedom and a will to help my fellow man, these traits seem to be lacking from biblical morality. Now I cannot and would not assume to speak for all atheists but the ones I know are less likely to compromise on their basic morality than most theists I have met. I cannot really account for that except for a level of character. It might be partly due to the fact that atheists must fight regularly for our choice of lifestyle and most of us do not shy away from such encounters. Atheists are used to making our opinions known without compromise. And when atheists come to our conclusions on morality it is through a decision made for personal and logical reasons, not just because someone told us it was so. (This is at least true of the atheists I know) Later
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Dissident Heart	Hans Kung	#65	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1868 03/16/07 10:25:03 Indisputable BookTalk Master	Speaking of Hans Kung. For something more in line with God Delusion, here's a repeat from yours truly: For theological brilliance and religious scholarship I highly recommend Hans Kung's Does God Exist: An Answer For Today. It is a massive tome, but you can get it cheap on Amazon and at most libraries. Kung leaves few stones unturned in answering the question in his title: Descartes, Pascal, Augustine, Aquinas, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Kuhn, Popper, Spinoza, Einstein, Whitehead, Russell, Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, Freud, Jung, Adler, Frankl, Buber, Erikson, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Bloch, Kant, Buddhism, Judaism, Barth, Rahner, Tillich, and William James. Yes, it is over 800 pages, but it is full of treasures for the Atheist, Agnostic and Theist of all stripes. He is painstakingly sympathetic in laying out the accuracy and truth of each position he covers; especially those he disagrees with. It is an education in world religions, philosophy of religion, and history of the modern intellectual pursuit of the "God question"; I'll let you guess how Kung answers it. Kung has written voluminously on theology and literature, philosophy, natural sciences, art, medical ethics, world religions, economics, and the search for a global ethic. He has been censored by the Catholic Church and is no longer able to serve in any capacity of the Priesthood...of which he was a major player in the develop of Vatican II and an early comrade and lifelong foe of Pope Benedict. I know it is a large suggestion, but I think it really represents the challenge involved with taking seriously the vast amount of information and voices brought to the discussion concerning what in the world we mean by the word God...and how best to approach the subject. I never fail to pick it up and find myself riveted to wherever I happen to open it: Descartes' mathematical certainty, Hegel's phenomenology of spirit, Freud's future of an illusion, Marx's opium of the people, Wittegstein's language games, James' will to believe, Buddhism's nirvana, Nietzsche's nihilism, and Jesus as the Son of God....thought provoking, inisghtful, illuminating and always something to learn from.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
irishrosem	Re: --	#66	[url]	[-]
Posts: 641 03/16/07 15:34:25 OMG I'm Awesome!	Niall, no worries on delayed responses; there's no rush. Hope things are better at home. As you said, this thread has certainly gotten turned around a bit and, because you have been the only person responding to several different arguments, I think you are confusing my position with other peoples' positions. I am hoping to clarify things a bit. I think my criticism against "ultimate" or religious-inspired morality has become to you a criticism of its sometimes (even often) conservative effects. So, for instance, you think I criticize ultimate morality in the R.C. Church because it automatically makes a true believer hate the sin of homosexuality, or premarital sex and on and on. Therefore, you wish to demonstrate that, at times, ultimate morality can have positive effects. (One that I can easily see is the R.C. stance on capital punishment.) However, the effect of ultimate morality is not where my criticism lies. I abhor the method itself. I detest that morality, in anyway, is dictated, as decisive, by fallible men, institutions and dogma. So whether that morality has positive or negative effects is of no consequence, because the system itself-to me-is corrupt. Now I demonstrated (specifically through Catholicism) in what ways I think religion does not allow one to develop her own moral code. I think, especially, JPII's invocation of "Good Catholics" demonstrates how it is necessary for Catholics to follow every moral declaration to the letter of the law. I do not criticize the institution for requiring its congregants to follow their laws; nor do I criticize the institution for not changing their traditions. (In fact, I rather admire the RC Church for not compromising their position.) My criticism is that this ultimate morality, if fully embraced by true indoctrination into the religion, does not allow the individual to develop, explore, understand her own morality, resulting in the ignorant (ignorant because they do not make conscious moral choices) sheeple I first spoke about. So, though there are times that ultimate morality may come to conclusions that I personally support, I will always see the method as bankrupt. You wish to hold that as a Catholic you get to make your own moral choices, and Catholicism kind of supports this farce with its discussion of free will. I understand this desire; I personally experienced it for many years. But, when I looked at what was required of me to be a "good Catholic," I recognized that individual moral decisions were not under my personal purview. The free will is in choosing to be Catholic, one of the reasons confirmation happens at a later stage in Catholicism. But once I make that decision, Catholic morality is pretty well spelled out. I listed quite a few such moral decisions above. So my argument is that you do not, as a Catholic, get to develop your own moral code. Morality is left to the Pope and the Magesterium, and is dictated to the individual. Though many Catholics have, today, chosen to develop their own morality, they, according to JPII in that speech I linked above, are not "Good Catholics." (I acknowledge that this has gotten a bit hairy. I gave my personal experience because that is how my own knowledge and understanding developed. This is not an effort to try to talk you out of your own faith, even though it may appear that way.) So, just to reiterate, my criticism of ultimate morality is not in the effects, either good or bad. My criticism lies in the system itself. Last, please note that I am not claiming that atheists automatically have a well-developed, fully conscious idea of personal morality just because they do not subscribe to ultimate morality. Nor am I saying that, by eschewing ultimate religious-inspired morality, atheists are not restricted by any belief system at all. Just that, when an atheist, or anyone not indoctrinated by an ultimate morality belief system, explores morality, they do so without the additional burden of needing to cast off or justify an ultimate belief system within that newly developed personal morality. One final note and this has nothing to do with this topic. Above, I referenced AA to make a point. On a separate issue I had to do some research on AA. As a result, I must retract what I said about AA above. AA is a vile system; its literature and method are repugnant to me. It is a toxic organization and I regret saying the little positive I granted it.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Niall001	Re: Hans Kung	#67	[url]	[-]
Posts: 897 03/17/07 05:10:07 Smarty Pants	*Quote:* He has been censored by the Catholic Church and is no longer able to serve in any capacity of the Priesthood...of which he was a major player in the develop of Vatican II and an early comrade and lifelong foe of Pope Benedict. Jezz Dissident, you aren't half predictable. I mention Kung in passing, then BAM! You've got a Kung bio with links posted. It's a pity that it's a bad bio though. Kung is still a priest. The only sanction taken against him is that he had his licence to teach Catholic Theology taken away from him. He continues to teach theology. He met Pope Benedict after he was elected, and the two are on pretty amicable terms. Shit. Have to reply to you later Irish. Gotta go play at Paddy's day mass. Full of Porn* http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Niall001	Re: --	#68	[url]	[-]
Posts: 897 03/17/07 20:13:53 Smarty Pants	*Quote:* Niall, no worries on delayed responses; there's no rush. Hope things are better at home. Cheers, things sorted themselves out thankfully. *Quote:* However, the effect of ultimate morality is not where my criticism lies. I abhor the method itself. I detest that morality, in anyway, is dictated, as decisive, by fallible men, institutions and dogma. So whether that morality has positive or negative effects is of no consequence, because the system itself-to me-is corrupt. *Quote:* Now I demonstrated (specifically through Catholicism) in what ways I think religion does not allow one to develop her own moral code. I think, especially, JPII's invocation of "Good Catholics" demonstrates how it is necessary for Catholics to follow every moral declaration to the letter of the law. I do not criticize the institution for requiring its congregants to follow their laws; nor do I criticize the institution for not changing their traditions. (In fact, I rather admire the RC Church for not compromising their position.) My criticism is that this ultimate morality, if fully embraced by true indoctrination into the religion, does not allow the individual to develop, explore, understand her own morality, resulting in the ignorant (ignorant because they do not make conscious moral choices) sheeple I first spoke about. So, though there are times that ultimate morality may come to conclusions that I personally support, I will always see the method as bankrupt. I don't think that a belief that something is ultimately right/wrong need by the result of dictation from institutions, though we may be working with different definitions here. You can believe that something is ultimately wrong, but have come to that decision yourself. Nor do I think that believing that you are right about the morality of something prohibts you from examining that belief, or indeed changing your mind about it. *Quote:* Though many Catholics have, today, chosen to develop their own morality, they, according to JPII in that speech I linked above, are not "Good Catholics." (I acknowledge that this has gotten a bit hairy. I gave my personal experience because that is how my own knowledge and understanding developed. This is not an effort to try to talk you out of your own faith, even though it may appear that way.) That's fair enough. I understand it's easiest to use your own personal experience. That said, please understand, that if I disagree with you, it isn't an attempt to 'bring you back to the fold.' I think that you've taken a rather conservative interpretation of what it takes to be a good catholic. What I hoped to show using the example of Kung is that it is possible to disagree with offical positions on certain matters, while still remaining in "good standing" to use his phrase. If a man can very publically oppose rather central church teachings while remaining a practicing priest and having tea with the pope, well, I think that there is room for discussion within the church. *Quote:* Last, please note that I am not claiming that atheists automatically have a well-developed, fully conscious idea of personal morality just because they do not subscribe to ultimate morality. Nor am I saying that, by eschewing ultimate religious-inspired morality, atheists are not restricted by any belief system at all. Just that, when an atheist, or anyone not indoctrinated by an ultimate morality belief system, explores morality, they do so without the additional burden of needing to cast off or justify an ultimate belief system within that newly developed personal morality. I may be wrong, but you don't seem to be making a distinction between coming to believe in ultimate morality as a result of exploring the question, and accepting that things are ultimately moral/immoral simply because somebody told you so. Personal niorality, that is a system of morality developed by an individual with a degree of disregard for convention and dogma, can also be ultimate, in the sense that, the person in question believes that morality is not an artifical construction that has a history, but something timeless, and that regardless of popular opinion, convention or nature, it is possible to say with absolute certainty whether or not an action is immoral. *Quote:* One final note and this has nothing to do with this topic. Above, I referenced AA to make a point. On a separate issue I had to do some research on AA. As a result, I must retract what I said about AA above. AA is a vile system; its literature and method are repugnant to me. It is a toxic organization and I regret saying the little positive I granted it. Really, got any interesting links. I'm familar with some papers showing that is not particularly effective in comparison to other therapies, but I'm also familiar with one particular 'study' (I remember it was by an American consumer rights publication.) that showed that users rated it just as highly. Indeed one of the most striking things that survey found was that consumers found almost all forms of therapy, including AA, equally effective, in contrast to the more objective studies. Full of Porn* http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Frank 013	Re: AA	#69	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 1457 03/19/07 10:20:26 Moderator	*Quote:* Niall Really, got any interesting links. I'm familiar with some papers showing that is not particularly effective in comparison to other therapies, but I'm also familiar with one particular 'study' (I remember it was by an American consumer rights publication.) that showed that users rated it just as highly. Indeed one of the most striking things that survey found was that consumers found almost all forms of therapy, including AA, equally effective, in contrast to the more objective studies. In regards to the AA subject Niall, you are correct that almost all forms of therapies and quitting attempts have a similar success rate, that includes quitting with no assistance. The reason that many of us find AA to be deplorable is because it is a religious organization in disguise. According to AA accepting a higher power is critical to success in the program. AA can fail a person who is otherwise successful on these criteria alone. Furthermore AA is using our (secular) government to further its agenda. In many DUI and other alcohol related cases a judge can, and often does make AA a part of the convicted individual's sentence. In effect forcing religion on these citizens who are supposed to be living in a secular country, to me this is deceptive, illegal and offensive. Penn and Teller did a great show about AA on their cable show Bull S**t. Later
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
irishrosem	Re: --	#70	[url]	[-]
Posts: 641 03/20/07 11:29:07 OMG I'm Awesome!	Good call, Niall. I think you're right; we probably are working from two different concepts, which would explain the confusion in our discussion. So I'm going to work on some definitions. I started out in this discussion keeping "ultimate morality" in quotes and often preceded it by religious-inspired. Really I should have used the term religious-dictated. But that was cumbersome and I thought I had made it clear what I was speaking of, so I cut out the religious-inspired and just started talking about ultimate morality vs. personal morality. My true criticism lies in dictated morality, largely religious-dictated morality, which is why my argument often focused on religiously observant people who do not explore their own moral choices. The "ultimate morality" I speak of is morality dictated by a religious institution as ultimately right or wrong. This type of morality breeds ignorance and unadulterated compliance, and is dangerous. Now you state that those who do not allow their morality to be dictated to them by religious institutions can still develop an "ultimate morality." I don't disagree. I can't see any situation where there is gray in rape. My only caveat is I think those who explore their own morality would seriously limit the instances which they consider to be "ultimately" wrong compared to those who allow their morality to be dictated to them. Institutionalized morality must have clear, decisive proclamations, and this does not allow the individual to explore the gray in these many different issues. So, for instance, the Catholic Church believes capital punishment is wrong in every instance. I too believe capital punishment is wrong, but I am willing to explore individual cases to see if that personal moral choice applies in every circumstance. And this is what I have been discussing all along. That religious-dictated morality castrates the individual's personal moral exploration, substituting institutionalized or religiously-dictated morality for what should be personally constructed morality. A question of morality should only be right and wrong to an individual because she feels/thinks/has determined it is right or wrong for her. (Note moral is different than legal.) Religious-dictated morality, specifically the Catholic Church, does not allow the individual, if she wishes to be a "good Catholic," to make those decisions for herself. (I am not limiting this criticism to the Catholic Church, but that is where most of my personal experience comes from, as does yours-I think. Thus, I thought it would behoove us, in light of the aforementioned confusing generalizations, to narrow the scope of our discussion.) As a result, the Catholic Church creates sheeple-dictating morality to the masses, morality that is understood to be ultimately right or wrong. As for AA, I had referenced it to help illustrate a point. I don't think this is the proper thread to discuss the toxicity of AA, though I'd be happy to do so elsewhere, if you wish. As for citations, personally, the most damning evidence against AA is in their own "Big Book," which can be downloaded off their site. But note, as Frank addressed, according to all available stats (which are minimal), AA has no better success rates than spontaneous cures. One final note, Niall, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. A few of us are doing an informal reading of Cormac McCarthy's The Road. It is a shorter novel and, I think, will be a quick read. Discussion starts April 7 if you're interested.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Frank 013	Re: Religious morality?	#71	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 1457 03/20/07 13:41:53 Moderator	In regards to the "religious inspired ethics" subject, I feel as though I made my point well enough but the writer of this article not only agrees with my assessment but also sums it up rather well. *Quote:* There is no question that many people do good things in the name of their faith - but there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical - and even spiritual - without pretending to know things they do not know. www.commondreams.org/views07/0316-31.htm Later
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Niall001	Re: Religious morality?	#72	[url]	[-]
Posts: 897 03/21/07 07:10:41 Smarty Pants	Frank *Quote:* The reason that many of us find AA to be deplorable is because it is a religious organization in disguise. According to AA accepting a higher power is critical to success in the program. AA can fail a person who is otherwise successful on these criteria alone. Furthermore AA is using our (secular) government to further its agenda. In many DUI and other alcohol related cases a judge can, and often does make AA a part of the convicted individual's sentence. Surely somebody has tried to do something about that. Forcing somebody to attend what seems to be a largely religious ceremony seems like a human rights violation. Irish *Quote:* Good call, Niall. I think you're right; we probably are working from two different concepts, which would explain the confusion in our discussion. So I'm going to work on some definitions. I started out in this discussion keeping "ultimate morality" in quotes and often preceded it by religious-inspired. Really I should have used the term religious-dictated. But that was cumbersome and I thought I had made it clear what I was speaking of, so I cut out the religious-inspired and just started talking about ultimate morality vs. personal morality. Right, well that clears that up. *Quote:* My true criticism lies in dictated morality, largely religious-dictated morality, which is why my argument often focused on religiously observant people who do not explore their own moral choices. The "ultimate morality" I speak of is morality dictated by a religious institution as ultimately right or wrong. This type of morality breeds ignorance and unadulterated compliance, and is dangerous. Largely, I agree with you. Though I\'m not so certain that it so much breeds \'ignorance and unadulterated compliance\' as it is a product of it. I suspect it is something of a self-reinforcing cycle. *Quote:* Now you state that those who do not allow their morality to be dictated to them by religious institutions can still develop an "ultimate morality." I don't disagree. I can't see any situation where there is gray in rape. My only caveat is I think those who explore their own morality would seriously limit the instances which they consider to be "ultimately" wrong compared to those who allow their morality to be dictated to them. Institutionalized morality must have clear, decisive proclamations, and this does not allow the individual to explore the gray in these many different issues. So, for instance, the Catholic Church believes capital punishment is wrong in every instance. I too believe capital punishment is wrong, but I am willing to explore individual cases to see if that personal moral choice applies in every circumstance. There\'s a degree of truth to what you\'re saying as far as I can tell, but I\'d wager that you\'ll find that there is a depth to institutionalised morality that you don\'t fully appreciate. Now that in itself can be taken as evidence that the institutions themselves fail to make this known. Part of this problem, I think, stems from the fact that these institutions need to make simple statements, because nuanced arguments often waft over the heads of the masses. It is a serious flaw, but given that humanity has only recently reached the point where a significant portion of the population find themselves in a situation where they are prosperous enough to become educated, and where they have time to think about the depths of these matters, that is understandable. You use the example of capital punishment. The Catholic church doesn\'t teach that capital punishment is wrong in all circumstances. There are individual cases where it might be considered morally justified, for instance, if incarceration of a murderer was not possible. To clarify, the catholic teaching is not so much that capital punishment is wrong, as that it is wrong to take the life of another person. Always and forever, it is wrong to take the life of another human being. It is ultimately wrong. However, then there is the double effect, and people will talk about what constitutes a person etc. In short, I doubt that there are any situations where personally, you would endorse the use of the death penalty and church teaching would prohibit it. *Quote:* And this is what I have been discussing all along. That religious-dictated morality castrates the individual's personal moral exploration, substituting institutionalized or religiously-dictated morality for what should be personally constructed morality. A question of morality should only be right and wrong to an individual because she feels/thinks/has determined it is right or wrong for her. See, to certain extent I\'d disagree with this last statement. Too often, great wrongs occur because people do what they feel is right. The emphasis is on feel. A wronged individual often wants revenge. It feels right, so they kill, they rape and they steal. Thinking is by far the better option, but sometimes, emotion leads to illogical and irrational conclusions. Sometimes, it\'s nice to have a neutral opinion. *Quote:* Religious-dictated morality, specifically the Catholic Church, does not allow the individual, if she wishes to be a "good Catholic," to make those decisions for herself. (I am not limiting this criticism to the Catholic Church, but that is where most of my personal experience comes from, as does yours-I think. Thus, I thought it would behoove us, in light of the aforementioned confusing generalizations, to narrow the scope of our discussion.) As a result, the Catholic Church creates sheeple-dictating morality to the masses, morality that is understood to be ultimately right or wrong. Yup, using the RCC, is easiest. I\'d certainly agree with a lot of what you\'ve said. But the caveat I\'d add would be that you\'re talking about what the church has done in practice, but it need not be that way in theory. You seem to be talking about what I would consider accidental properties, as though they were an essential aspect of the church. There are no \"Good Catholics\". I\'m certainly not a \"Good Catholic\". I doubt that there is a single \"Good Catholic\" in existence, at least by the criteria you seem to be using. The thing is, Sheeple cannot be \"Good Catholics\" because being a \"Good Catholic\" requires a degree of understanding that sheeple cannot access, while remaing a sheeple. To be a \"Good Catholic\" you need to do more than comply, you need to understand (as opposed to just having information), and to believe. If you want to be a \"Good Catholic\" you are obliged to come to decisions for yourself. *Quote:* As for AA, I had referenced it to help illustrate a point. I don't think this is the proper thread to discuss the toxicity of AA, though I'd be happy to do so elsewhere, if you wish. As for citations, personally, the most damning evidence against AA is in their own "Big Book," which can be downloaded off their site. But note, as Frank addressed, according to all available stats (which are minimal), AA has no better success rates than spontaneous cures. No it probably isn\'t the right place. I\'ve been reading a little about AA since you mentioned it, and I\'m a little shocked. You never really see the religious aspects shown in fictional representations of the movement. I knew that their motto was \"Let go, and let God\" but I didn\'t think that a belief in God was promoted as necessary in order to beat alcoholism. *Quote:* One final note, Niall, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. A few of us are doing an informal reading of Cormac McCarthy's The Road. It is a shorter novel and, I think, will be a quick read. Discussion starts April 7 if you're interested. Hmm. Let me see if I can find a copy. Fiction-wise, well, true-fiction wise, I\'ve be attempting to get though The Executioner\'s Song, which is one hell of a long book. If The Road is short, I should be able to fit it in. Full of Porn* http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
irishrosem	Re: Religious morality?	#73	[url]	[-]
Posts: 641 03/21/07 15:38:00 OMG I'm Awesome!	Niall: Surely somebody has tried to do something about that. Forcing somebody to attend what seems to be a largely religious ceremony seems like a human rights violation. There have been a couple cases in the U.S. where court-mandated participation in AA has been challenged as unconstitutional. I think the cases, thus far, are only on the state and district court levels, though. Largely, I agree with you. Though I\'m not so certain that it so much breeds \'ignorance and unadulterated compliance\' as it is a product of it. I suspect it is something of a self-reinforcing cycle. I can imagine that people who allow their moral code to be dictated to them could be largely intellectually and philosophically lazy, ignorant people. But I still assert, for the reasons given above, that religious institutions, specifically the Catholic Church, also breeds this ignorance and blind compliance. There\'s a degree of truth to what you\'re saying as far as I can tell, but I\'d wager that you\'ll find that there is a depth to institutionalised morality that you don\'t fully appreciate. Please explain. Maybe there is a "depth" to institutionally-dictated morality of which I am unaware. However, understanding whatever nuances might exist, is unlikely to change my abhorrence to the practice. As I have stated before, the ends rarely, if ever, justify the means for me. Part of this problem, I think, stems from the fact that these institutions need to make simple statements, because nuanced arguments often waft over the heads of the masses. That's exactly the problem for me. Religious institutions' effort to make solid, incontrovertible statements for the ignorant masses to swallow eliminates all the gray that should be explored in most moral issues. You use the example of capital punishment. The Catholic church doesn\'t teach that capital punishment is wrong in all circumstances. I know. However, as a Catholic student I was always taught that capital punishment was wrong. Again going back to the need for institutions to simplify the message for the masses, which is another inherent factor that makes institutionally-dictated morality a bad idea. And though the Catholic Church does not have a 100% anti-death penalty stance, they are slowly moving that way. JP2 was a strong, verbal opponent to the death penalty, feeling that states now had the capacity for alternatives to the death penalty and often called for elimination of state executions. The Vatican has not moved away from this position since JP2's death, as far as I know. To clarify, the catholic teaching is not so much that capital punishment is wrong, as that it is wrong to take the life of another person. Always and forever, it is wrong to take the life of another human being. It is ultimately wrong. Well, I understand the RCC's stance on humans taking human life; however, I thought the Church's stance on capital punishment was a bit more complicated than that. I always assumed that the Church opposed capital punishment because it limited the sinner's ability to redeem herself. However, then there is the double effect, and people will talk about what constitutes a person etc. Yet, the RCC does not allow its faithful to engage that discussion. To participate in abortion, to support capital punishment or to use contraceptives is immoral for all Catholics, despite what the individual believes constitutes life. That belief is dictated to her by the Church. See, to certain extent I\'d disagree with this last statement. Too often, great wrongs occur because people do what they feel is right. The emphasis is on feel. A wronged individual often wants revenge. It feels right, so they kill, they rape and they steal. I was careful to note there is a difference between moral and legal. I can understand the moral justification behind revenge killing; however, I can also understand the legal restrictions against it. I often think of the judge who responds to the father of a young woman who is raped and murdered. The father asks the judge, what would you do if it were your daughter? Wouldn't you want that beast executed? And the judge replies, if it were my daughter of course I would want him dead. However, I wouldn't be the one making that decision, because I am the one least-qualified to make a just decision. Niall, be aware that morality and legality exist on two different planes. Just because I think something is morally right, does not make it legally right and vice versa. For instance, I think it is morally irresponsible for Americans to go around buying gigantic homes to house two and three people. However, there is nothing legally wrong with this. Yup, using the RCC, is easiest. I\'d certainly agree with a lot of what you\'ve said. But the caveat I\'d add would be that you\'re talking about what the church has done in practice, but it need not be that way in theory. I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about here. Where does the RCC's practice contradict its theory? Also, though I generally think that theory is interesting, practice is substantial. It doesn't matter very much to me what the Church thinks, if their acts do not reflect those thoughts. There are no \"Good Catholics\". I\'m certainly not a \"Good Catholic\". I doubt that there is a single \"Good Catholic\" in existence, at least by the criteria you seem to be using. It's not my criteria, it's the criteria of the Church, established by the Vatican and dictated to the public, the last I read it through JP2. Did you read the Vatican links I gave above? Niall, you have said a few times that I have a simplified view of the Church's take on morality. Which might be so. However, I would argue you have an unorthodox (even dissident) view of the same-that your opinions do not reflect what the Church teaches nor are they indicative of the rigid morality that the Church espouses. That may be a bit unfair, since I don't know you so I'm going to narrow that down a bit. Your opinions are reminiscent of the opinions of many Catholics I know, who do not jive with what the Church actually preaches. The Catholics I know are not "Good Catholics" and will never be good Catholics, don't even strive to be good Catholics. Therefore, according to the Church, they should not be receiving communion on the random Sundays they decide to show up at Mass-many of the Catholics I know who show up for every Sunday mass, still should not be receiving communion, according to the Church's dogma. But they do, and that makes them hypocrites in my mind. They, in reality, are creating their own moral code on many issues, particularly moral issues that affect their personal life, and then blindly bowing to the Church on other issues. Hmm. Let me see if I can find a copy. Fiction-wise, well, true-fiction wise, I\'ve be attempting to get though The Executioner\'s Song, which is one hell of a long book. If The Road is short, I should be able to fit it in. Well now, speaking of capital punishment, eh? Norman Mailerughthat's always a love/hate reading for me. The Executioner's Song is non-fiction though, isn't it? How do you like it so far? I think The Road will be a quick read and we'd love to have a few more voices joining in the discussion.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Niall001	Re: Religious morality?	#74	[url]	[-]
Posts: 897 03/28/07 19:26:04 Smarty Pants	*Quote:* Please explain. Maybe there is a "depth" to institutionally-dictated morality of which I am unaware. However, understanding whatever nuances might exist, is unlikely to change my abhorrence to the practice. As I have stated before, the ends rarely, if ever, justify the means for me. What I mean to say is that this depth is important because generally it is because many of the teaching are supposed to logically flow from the basic belief the average believer professes to hold. The depth behind the teachings generally outlines the reasoning that leads to the teaching. It is not a matter of saying belief X, Y and Z. It's more a matter of saying, well you say that you believe in X, so logically, it follows that you must believe Y and Z. *Quote:* That's exactly the problem for me. Religious institutions' effort to make solid, incontrovertible statements for the ignorant masses to swallow eliminates all the gray that should be explored in most moral issues. Could you give me an example for this. I can't really think of any issue where it is quite so black and white. There are very few "You should never" or "You must always" teachings that I know of that are not covered in many caveats. *Quote:* I know. However, as a Catholic student I was always taught that capital punishment was wrong. Again going back to the need for institutions to simplify the message for the masses, which is another inherent factor that makes institutionally-dictated morality a bad idea. And though the Catholic Church does not have a 100% anti-death penalty stance, they are slowly moving that way. JP2 was a strong, verbal opponent to the death penalty, feeling that states now had the capacity for alternatives to the death penalty and often called for elimination of state executions. The Vatican has not moved away from this position since JP2's death, as far as I know. Thankfully, no. The church has not moved away from that position. What I think it is important to emphasise here, is that the teaching has never really changed. There are two relevant teachings, which I will simplify for brevity's sake. 1. Human life is sacred and so taking human life is wrong. 2. The state has a right to protect its people. Capital punishment was traditionally tolerated by the church because it was argued that the termination of the criminal's life was simply an after-effect of protecting the people. However, as society change, and our body of knowledge increased, it became clear that capital punishment, as it is practiced in countries like the U.S., could not be justified. There were alternatives available, like internment and rehabilitation. In theory, the church could do a complete U-turn at some point in the future, if it were somehow to come to like that the only way you could prevent a convicted murderer from killing again would be by frying their brains. This is what I mean when I say that there is a depth to the teachings. They are not so inflexible as it would seem you imagine them to be, though of course, I may simply be misinterpreting what you've said. *Quote:* Yet, the RCC does not allow its faithful to engage that discussion. To participate in abortion, to support capital punishment or to use contraceptives is immoral for all Catholics, despite what the individual believes constitutes life. That belief is dictated to her by the Church. Sorry about the questions, but what exactly do you mean that they are not allowed to engage in the discussion. They cannot help but engage in that discussion. It is these discussions that have changed the church over time, both for good and ill. That of course you cannot go out and vote in referendums on matters merely reflects the fact that the church is not democratic. If you want to change teaching , you have to know your theology well, and make your arguments. The strength of your argument is what is important. Of course, there are different levels of teaching, some of which cannot be changed, but those tend to be things like belief in the Trinity, Jesus' divinity and what have you, but others are simply matters of discipline, life for instance, priests remaining celibate and change from country and indeed within them. The thing you have to remember is that in Catholic teaching there is a difference between doing something evil, (that is to commit a sin) and doing something wrong, that is something inappropriate that God would prefer you did not do. The act is nowhere near as important as the intention behind it. To commit a mortal sin, you must understand what you are doing is wrong, and freely choose to do it anyway. The reason I mention this is to make sure that when we say that it is immoral for all Catholics to participate in an abortion or to support capital punishment we are talking about the same thing. Yes, the church holds that the acts in question are wrong, but it does not follow that the individual has committed a sin of the mortal variety if they have a different opinion of what constitutes life. *Quote:* I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about here. Where does the RCC's practice contradict its theory? Also, though I generally think that theory is interesting, practice is substantial. It doesn't matter very much to me what the Church thinks, if their acts do not reflect those thoughts. Where does the the practice contradict the theory? It's hard to no where to start! The church has been judgemental. It has been proud. It has lusted for power. It has failed to protect those in need. It's failings are too many to list. But I regret the form these questions have taken. When I say the church, I mean the church hierarchy. The Church is pretty much everybody. I am a Catholic in the sense that I adhere to church teaching, and discipline to the best of my ability. Like I said earlier, there are different levels of teaching within the Church. Some you must believe, though these are probably fewer that most people imagine. Other teachings, are more like guidance. The problem is that even these teachings require interpretation. This is the role that the hierarchy are supposed to play. Alas, they are very fallible, and often over-confident. There have been Popes who did not believe in the Trinity for Christ's sake! I like to examine the basis of these proclamations from time to time. I often find myself disagreeing with the likes of Benedict or John Paul II from time to time, but I don't think that I really have many, if any, opinions that a Catholic Theologian (as opposed to a theologian who is a Catholic) would not have. *Quote:* It's not my criteria, it's the criteria of the Church, established by the Vatican and dictated to the public, the last I read it through JP2. Did you read the Vatican links I gave above? JP2 was a man. He may have been Pope, but that did not make him infallible. It certainly didn't make him a great theologian. Sometimes, the man seemed to attempt to make orders where he really only had the authority to make pleas. *Quote:* Niall, you have said a few times that I have a simplified view of the Church's take on morality. Which might be so. However, I would argue you have an unorthodox (even dissident) view of the same-that your opinions do not reflect what the Church teaches nor are they indicative of the rigid morality that the Church espouses. That may be a bit unfair, since I don't know you so I'm going to narrow that down a bit. Your opinions are reminiscent of the opinions of many Catholics I know, who do not jive with what the Church actually preaches. The Catholics I know are not "Good Catholics" and will never be good Catholics, don't even strive to be good Catholics. Therefore, according to the Church, they should not be receiving communion on the random Sundays they decide to show up at Mass-many of the Catholics I know who show up for every Sunday mass, still should not be receiving communion, according to the Church's dogma. Well, to be honest, I'm not a particularly orthodox person, at least that is what my friends, teachers and the like have told me. Of course, weird or more politely eccentric are the terms more commonly used. Which honestly I find a little weird, given that I hardly go around dancing the samba naked in public and midnight. I've always thought of myself as being somebody who has a rather complicated way of being normal. Anyway, what I'm trying to get around to is that I call things as I see them, but I'm aware that this is not the way that everybody sees them. I certainly don't see myself as being a dissident (one is enough) and my views are orthodox enough. I'm in no danger of excommunication. Regarding communion, I suspect you may have taken some conservative Catholics at their word. Yes, there are situations where it is not appropriate for Catholics to present themselves for communion, and there are situations where it would be inappropriate for a priest to serve an individual communion, however, this requires a judgement call. So long as there is any doubt in the mind of the individual or the priest, it is best that the individual receive communion as normal. *Quote:* But they do, and that makes them hypocrites in my mind. They, in reality, are creating their own moral code on many issues, particularly moral issues that affect their personal life, and then blindly bowing to the Church on other issues. Hypocrites? Maybe. Though I try not to throw the word around. It tends to act like a boomerang. As a matter of interest, what issues do they blindly bow to the church on. It seems that these people are not true sheeple then, just people who like woollen jackets. *Quote:* Well now, speaking of capital punishment, eh? Norman Mailerughthat's always a love/hate reading for me. The Executioner's Song is non-fiction though, isn't it? How do you like it so far? I think The Road will be a quick read and we'd love to have a few more voices joining in the discussion. See, I've been reading TES as a true crime novel, rather than as a piece of fiction. I absolutely love the book as faction. Mailer's technique is revolutionary, so superior to that adopted by the likes of Capote. Mailer stands off and lets the people tell the story, but this technique is his own. He adopts their voices and relates the story. Nothing else. As a novel, it's good, but on occasion, entertainment plays second fiddle to accuracy. If you ever read the book, then I'd also advise reading Mikal Gilmore's 'Shot Through The Heart'. Mikal is Gary's brother. Once you've read both books, it makes you appreciate just how goddam complicated and horrible life can be. And the good news is that I'm fully ready to begin discussing The Road come April Fool's day! Full of Porn* http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
irishrosem	Re: Religious morality?	#75	[url]	[-]
Posts: 641 03/28/07 21:21:16 OMG I'm Awesome!	Damn, Niall. I would swear you're just keeping this thread alive because you're the one that started it. No time to respond right now. Just wanted to give you a head's up. *Quote:* And the good news is that I'm fully ready to begin discussing The Road come April Fool's day! FYI, discussion on The Road is set to start on April 7 now. I think that is largely due to me. It seems most everyone else has read or will be finished it soon. I just got it in the mail today and probably won't get a chance to read it until next week. I don't mind if discussion starts before I can contribute, I'll just ignore the thread until I finish the book. Glad you'll be joining us, although if Mr. P. doesn't jump in, I'll be surrounded by theists...
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Niall001	--	#76	[url]	[-]
Posts: 897 03/29/07 07:14:15 Smarty Pants	*Quote:* Damn, Niall. I would swear you're just keeping this thread alive because you're the one that started it. Well The God Hypothesis is running neck and neck with this thread when it comes to number of posts. I refuse to let Chris' thread beat me! I'll start ignoring this thread just as soon as the Chapter 2 thread dies and victory is mine! *Quote:* Glad you'll be joining us, although if Mr. P. doesn't jump in, I'll be surrounded by theists...
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
CounselPub	Imagine there's no god or heaven	#77	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4 03/31/07 09:36:21 Brand Spankin' New	I hope I'm not breaking house rules to refer folks to an ebook "The Richard Dawkins Delusion" on www.mobipocket.com This is certainly on topic on addresses the fundamental question of whether or not a transcendent standard is necessary to human life.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Chris OConnor	Re: Imagine there's no god or heaven	#78	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 9511 03/31/07 11:15:35 BookTalk Owner	No, you're not breaking the rules at all. Can you provide an actual link to the ebook?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Chris OConnor	Re: Imagine there's no god or heaven	#79	[url]	[-]
Indisputable BookTalk Master Posts: 9511 03/31/07 11:21:56 BookTalk Owner	I've found the ebook. Here is a direct link to The Richard Dawkins Delusion. If anyone reads this ebook and has comments please create a new thread and start a discussion about it there. This thread is too big.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
irishrosem	Re: Imagine there's no god or heaven	#80	[url]	[-]
Posts: 641 04/09/07 17:37:37 OMG I'm Awesome!	Hey Niall: I've owed you this response for a long time, but have grown a bit tired of all the Dawkins' conversations, and have let this languish. Niall: It is not a matter of saying belief X, Y and Z. It's more a matter of saying, well you say that you believe in X, so logically, it follows that you must believe Y and Z. I'm not really sure what you're getting at in the context of this discussion. I must be missing something. But, again, this conversation is really old so I might have just forgotten from where we were coming. Niall: Could you give me an example for this. I can't really think of any issue where it is quite so black and white. There are very few "You should never" or "You must always" teachings that I know of that are not covered in many caveats. Mostly my issues deal with all those "victimless" sins, and those tend to center around the bedroom. Homosexuality is always wrong, no matter how committed the relationship might be. In the same vein, sex outside of marriage is always wrong, no matter how committed the relationship may be, how responsible the sexual partners may be. Birth control-outside of the rhythm method and abstinence-particularly the pill is wrong. I could go on, like I said there is not as much gray in the institution of the church as Catholics I know like to believe. They just put on their gray glasses when looking at the church. Niall: Capital punishment was traditionally tolerated by the church because it was argued that the termination of the criminal's life was simply an after-effect of protecting the people. Hey, I have nothing against the Catholic Church's approach to capital punishment. And as an institution, at least contemporarily, I think their position has been pretty reasonable. And the Catholic Church has been in the trenches educating, protesting and resisting state executions for a long time. That's awesome. My problem is they expect their flock to follow along with their position. As I said before, it doesn't matter to me whether or not I agree with the position the Church espouses (that's why I brought up capital punishment), the system of dictating personal moral choices is faulty. There are Catholics removed from capital punishment juries because they cannot, for reasons of religion, sentence a defendant to death. Whereas, I wish they would state that they cannot, for personal moral reasons, sentence a defendant to death. Make the choice because your conscience, after careful consideration and thought, decided this was so-not because your church told you it was so. Niall: If you want to change teaching , you have to know your theology well, and make your arguments. And be male, and be celibate and be very high on the influential scale of the Church hierarchy. The Pope and the Magesterium have all say in the changes to Church doctrine. That leaves out at least half of their followers-you know those born with vaginas. Niall: To commit a mortal sin, you must understand what you are doing is wrong, and freely choose to do it anyway. The reason I mention this is to make sure that when we say that it is immoral for all Catholics to participate in an abortion or to support capital punishment we are talking about the same thing. Yes, the church holds that the acts in question are wrong, but it does not follow that the individual has committed a sin of the mortal variety if they have a different opinion of what constitutes life. I disagree with your final statement. I never heard from the Church hey if you don't think it's a sin then it's o.k. I know the whole knowingly and intentionally thing gets played up in Catholicism. But, are you seriously trying to say that it's o.k. to be a Catholic and commit acts that the Church deems wrong as long as you do so ignorantly? And how many nominally educated people do you know that don't know that abortion is a sin in the Catholic Church? The issue isn't how the Church and its followers create caveats to allow people to follow only a smattering of the Church's demands. The issue is that they demand at all. I have a problem with the Church dictating what should be personal moral choices. More irritating, however, is that most Catholics don't follow all the Church's demands, yet still align themselves with the Church and its more arrogant doctrines that are deflected onto other people. So say Jack is a Catholic and he is a good Church-attending, sacrament-receiving, Christian-living etc., etc. guy. But, you know, he's thirty and not married and what's he supposed to do-not have sex? Of course he has himself a little premarital sex. But he's careful about it, uses a condom, doesn't get the girl pregnant. And he cares about this woman, it's even possible they might marry one day. This isn't one-night-stand territory, this is a committed relationship that just doesn't involve marriage yet. Now Jack knows the Church's stance on both premarital sex and condoms. The sex thing he knows is a big deal, I mean, it's part of the Big Ten. The condom thing, not so much. Either way, Jack is comfortable with his moral choice (one the Church would rail against). Jack and his girlfriend, Jill, are headed into the city early one Saturday morning. They arrive at 11th and Locust Street in Philadelphia, take the placards out of their car and walk over to the Planned Parenthood office on the corner. And there they stand, respectful and silent, protesting that abortion is sin (not a moral choice or social choice with which they disagree, but a sin). For me this has become a problem among religious adherents who are now thriving in this inconsistency. In situation A, their premarital sex, Jack and Jill feel it is o.k. to make personal moral decisions that the Church condemns. In situation B, abortion, Jack and Jill align themselves with the Church's stance (not their own personal decisions) and point fingers at others' moral choices. This is how I see many religious people, particularly Catholics (but that's because I know a lot of Catholics), living in this country. If they were consistent they would choose to follow all the Church's moral restrictions or not. But, instead, they choose to follow the doctrine when it is convenient and they choose to make their own decisions when it is not. This inconsistency is where the nugget of the religious problem in the U.S. lies, for me. Niall: When I say the church, I mean the church hierarchy. Oh I see what you mean. Yes the institution of the Catholic Church is very different from Christ's teachings. All of my conversation has dealt with the institution itself, I haven't been discussing Catholicism as ideology (though Catholicism reeks of institutionalization like almost no other religion). This all, for me, has been about the institute of the Catholic Church (i.e. Rome). And those Catholics who align themselves with Catholicism, unless and until they distance themselves from the institution, are aligning themselves with what pours from Rome. Niall: JP2 was a man. He may have been Pope, but that did not make him infallible. It certainly didn't make him a great theologian. But it did make him head of the institution of the Catholic Church, and as you pointed out above, that is much different than say the leader of a country. A religious follower doesn't get to pick and choose moral positions, like a citizen gets to pick and choose political positions. Morality is dictated and a sin is a sin is a sinunless, as you also pointed out above, you hide your head in the sand and claim that you didn't know it was a sin. Niall: Anyway, what I'm trying to get around to is that I call things as I see them, but I'm aware that this is not the way that everybody sees them. Actually, I think that more and more people probably see things the way you do. That's my point. The more people decide that it's o.k. to make their own moral choices, the more apparent this inconsistency becomes. I'm happy that most the Catholics I know do make their own moral choices about many different issues. I'm happy they have decided that their sex lives are theirs, and the moral decisions involved belong to the individual alone. I just wish, in the process of this discovery, they would distance themselves, in general, from the moral edicts of the Church. Niall: I certainly don't see myself as being a dissident (one is enough) and my views are orthodox enough. I'm in no danger of excommunication. LOLabsolutely. I don't think you could compete with our own Dissident. The thought that's running around my head though, (and there's lots of empty room in there for those things to run around) is that most Catholics these days are dissident with regard to the institution of Catholicism. (And this is certainly based on my anecdotal, largely, though not all, U.S.-based observations) Most people aren't the strict religious zealots that the religious right would like to claim-or even that Rome would like to claim. I think that most people have learned to make their own personal moral choices and do not look to the Church to decide what is right and wrong for them. I think most religious people don't judge other people on their personal moral choices that don't negatively affect others. The problem for me is it seems like these people are the silent majority. And this silent majority is either choosing to align themselves with the increased fundamental movement (the hypocrites I was speaking of before) or being sucked in, unaware of the danger on the other side. This silent majority doesn't stand up for homosexuals that are maligned by the more strict religious groups. This silent majority doesn't stand up for the single mother. This silent majority doesn't demand that religions keep their moral decrees out of secular laws. And by allowing their numbers to be incorporated into groups that do like to push their moral restrictions onto others, the silent majority are thus implicated in these efforts. Again, it's a huge problem in the U.S., one theists here seem to be ignoring.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

About BookTalk.org

BookTalk.org NEWS

Imagine, there's no heaven

Quick Reply