And whats the price of entry into this eternal themepark?  That we strung up the better man, piled all of our shit on his shoulders...tortured and then executed him?  Do I have to sign off on that to get the golden ticket?

(June 18, 2015 at 1:27 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 18, 2015 at 12:52 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I'm well aware of the idea of 'softening' the verses from apologists, but I'd rather they just update the damn verse itself to reflect what they claim is its true meaning.

But my primary objection isn't the word 'hate' itself, I've read plenty writings like the one you linked.  I wasn't trying to pull a "gotcha" just because of one word in one verse.

My larger point is the ideas behind the verses.  In order to follow Jesus, one must (using your linked words) value his family and even his own life less than Jesus, and must put more stock in the next life than this life (the only life we can be sure we're going to live).  I find it rather repulsive for one figure to literally say that you must love nothing more than he himself, and that if you value the here and now - our reality and societies and loved ones - over the hereafter, then you're somehow wrong.

Ah gotcha. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm impressed and glad you were able to look past the one word to see what the actual message is.

I know this won't be convincing or make any sense for someone who doesn't believe in a God, but "to worship" is a more powerful thing than "to love" (as we understand it), and we are supposed to worship God. We are not supposed to worship any member of our family. So yes, we are supposed to put God above our families. Also, I believe that God made us and that He made us for Himself... so when all that we know here on earth is gone, the thing that will matter most and give us complete fulfillment, is God. No one or nothing else will ever be able to fulfill us completely, until God does when we are reunited with him in the afterlife... because that is what we were made for. Heaven isn't great because there are flying horses and everyone is nice, Heaven is great because it will give us complete fulfillment by being with God. We won't need flying horses. I know you don't agree with that or understand it, and this probably isn't the answer you wanted to her, but I can't deny that this is what I believe and I stand behind it.

As for the afterlife being more important than this life... well, I know you don't believe in afterlife, but imagine for a second that you did. Let's say you live until you are 100. What is 100 years in comparison to an eternity? Seriously, in the realm of eternity, forever and ever, something that will never ever end, what is 100 years?? When you put it into perspective like that, 100 years is nothing, nothing, compared to our entire, never ending existence. So for someone who believes in the afterlife, it makes absolute sense to care more about the never ending, eternal life more so than the one that will last a measly 100 years. Does that make sense?

Well, thanks for starting with that first sentence, because you're right, it's something I really just don't understand or even want. The idea of worship rather revolts me, so I wasn't implying we should worship anyone in our family (or any person ever). I believe we should focus solely on the people around us and our world and our society that we know we have, instead of a proposition that only promises the reward after we die.

And I do find one of your last sentences very troubling:

Quote:it makes absolute sense to care more about the never ending, eternal life more so than the one that will last a measly 100 years.

And that's the attitude I find problematic. It's a reason people use to deny climate change, minimize the suffering of others (and themselves), it justifies lack of action to ameliorate the problems that plague our world, and generally removes the impetus for us to improve and sustain our 'measly' reality, because hey, it's only for a few decades right?

(June 18, 2015 at 12:49 pm)Rhythm Wrote: So, long story short...we can't trust that jesus actually said what the bible claims he said, or that jesus intended for his audience to take it in the way that the arbitrators of biblical truth decided to write it?

Oh we can; as long as we stick with the assumption that everything he is written to have said is a shimmering pearl of wisdom, with nothing but the best possible intentions. Rather a narrow brief, but literally everything can be made to fit by waving them away as mistranslations, out-of-context distortions, etc.

This life is the only one which we can all be 100% certain is real. Therefore, all other considerations must by definition come second. The reverse sets an extremely dangerous precedent that has been played out countless times through history, as pointed out abovem

(June 18, 2015 at 1:29 pm)Rhythm Wrote: And whats the price of entry into this eternal themepark?  That we strung up the better man, piled all of our shit on his shoulders...tortured and then executed him?  Do I have to sign off on that to get the golden ticket?

Hi Rhythm.

I apologize to you and the other poster that I have not yet addressed your questions regarding Vecarious Redemption. I know this is a very important subject and want to make sure I am up to par in order to give you the best response. In the mean time, please be patient with me.

Now, addressing your post above, I can only say this as a Catholic. There are Christian denominations out there who hold the belief that as long as a person believes Jesus is God, they will go to Heaven. Personally, this makes little sense to me. Perhaps they have a good philosophy behind it that I am not aware of, but I cannot speak for them. As a Catholic, I do not believe that "this is all that is necessary" to attain Heaven.

Furthermore, Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically teaches two things:

1. We cannot say we know if someone went to Hell. So, per Catholic teaching, I cannot say that my atheist aunt who passed away a couple years ago went to Hell. I know she was an Atheist and did not believe in God, but it would be against Church teaching for me to say/speculate "she's an atheist so she went to Hell." My aunt was a very kind person who lived a life of virtue and integrity. Personally, I absolutely, 100% believe she is in Heaven.

2. The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically states that a person does not necessarily need to have been baptized (as we know it, with a pastor and water), in order to go to Heaven. It is perfectly possible that a person who lives a life of virtue, yet for whatever reason, is not Christian, to go to Heaven. That person does not need a baptismal ceremony, as we know it. That person can receive "baptism" through the grace of God, and can most certainly go to Heaven.

So basically, the Church does not go into severe specifics and hard lines regarding who does and does not go to Heaven. Personally speaking, I believe that if a person lives a life of virtue (love, honestly, generosity, kindness, humility, forgiveness, chastity, compassion, etc), that person will go to Heaven even if they are not Catholic. I think what matters most is what is in a person's heart.

(June 18, 2015 at 12:01 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 18, 2015 at 12:00 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Wait, earlier you said that the OT was allegory but the NT was literal ... But here you are ascribing a different meaning to what he said -- and that is the antithesis of literalism.

I apologize. Let me be clear.

I believe the stories told in the OT were written allegorically. I do not believe the story of Jesus in the NT was written allegorically. That doesn't mean that Jesus Himself didn't sometimes use figure of speech or metaphor when describing something. This is nothing unusual or alarming. We all do it, probably every day.

Verily. Good point. The teachings attributed to Jesus probably were largely allegorical. Some people even think that when Jesus said "I am the way", he was referring to his example - not himself. If they're right, eating his flesh and blood, even symbolically, misses the point. He calls on us to join him, not worship him. Actualization, not abnegation, may have been the way of which he spoke.

(June 18, 2015 at 1:33 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

Quote:it makes absolute sense to care more about the never ending, eternal life more so than the one that will last a measly 100 years.

And that's the attitude I find problematic.  It's a reason people use to deny climate change, minimize the suffering of others (and themselves), it justifies lack of action to ameliorate the problems that plague our world, and generally removes the impetus for us to improve and sustain our 'measly' reality, because hey, it's only for a few decades right?

Well, just to clarify, by "this life" I meant the material things and the superficial things. Money, reputation, a big house, etc. Other people are not just material things of this life, and we should absolutely care about them and their well being. And of course, we should take good care of the environment and nature which are also creations of God and hold dignity.

The Works of Mercy are a very important part of Christianity:

1. To feed the hungry.
   
2. To give drink to the thirsty.
   
3. To clothe the naked.
   
4. To Shelter the Homeless
   
5. To visit the sick.
   
6. To visit the imprisoned
   
7. To bury the dead.
   

Clearly we are not supposed to ignore the people around us or their suffering.

Quote:I think what matters most is what is in a person's heart.

You mean, the crucifixion of christ, and accepting the crucifixion of christ -isn't- actually required...for me to get into heaven?  I don't know...should we check the catechism?  You're a catholic, right? I think you're being disingenuous.

No, no..scratch that, I -know- that you are. Disingenuousness was a problem for you, just a few posts back.....maybe it's only a problem, for you, when non-catholics leverage it?

Do you have a position on the moral status of vicarious redemption? How has god helped you to see -why- this is "good", or - on the off chance, -why- this is "bad"?

(June 18, 2015 at 12:59 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

---

(June 17, 2015 at 10:07 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: I don't think that morality is a question of what is best for society so that our species survives.  But if it were, it would mean that you Catholics should stop breeding like rabbits because overpopulation is a serious problem.  It is YOUR morality that is a problem.  Atheism is not a source for such immorality.

You might want to look back at what I stated earlier that you previously seemed to like.

It may also be worth mentioning that atheism is not a doctrine, it is the lack of a belief in a god (or, for strong atheism, it is the belief that there is no god).  There is no universal agreement among atheists about morality, and I certainly would not endorse the idea that morality must further the survival of the species (which must, in any case, be a futile thing, as humanity will eventually perish regardless of what anyone does).

Now, it may be that evolution gave rise to empathy, but it does not follow from that that empathy has a specific goal.

If god is added to the equation, it changes nothing as far as morality is concerned.  People who believe that morality is merely following what god says are grossly mistaken.

---

Hi Pyrrho.

I have read a couple of posts here claiming that morality is based on what is good for society so that our species can survive. So what I was saying was, how will this change if overpopulation ever becomes a big problem? If morality is based on our need to survive as a species, and the need to survive becomes more about being sure we have enough resources in a world with way too many humans, does that mean that we would no longer have a moral obligation to be sure others didn't get killed, etc?

It means that people should stop having so many children.  This means that we should embrace birth control for everyone who wants it.  And encourage people to use it, and teach them about it, in a realistic manner, making no pretense about how effective each option is.

Now, you might want people to just stop having sex.  But you know that is not realistic; people are going to have sex.  And so we need to deal with this fact, rather than pretend otherwise.  To have a solution for overpopulation, the solution must actually work.  Otherwise, it is useless, and if it prevents actions that would work, it is worse than useless, it is then detrimental.  Real problems need real solutions, not wishful thinking.

There is a homely old saying, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that is very true for overpopulation.  The best approach is to not produce too many people, not to kill the extras.

And this means that we need to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church.  You yourself acknowledge that having so many children is a problem, and yet you support an organization that actively works to make the problem worse.  Every time you put money in the offering plate, you are helping to pay for advertising and political activity that actively tries to make the problem worse, by trying to eliminate access to birth control and to tell people that it is immoral to use birth control.  You should stop doing that, as your voluntary contribution works against what you know to be right.


But you are right about the fact that overpopulation does tend to make life cheap.  Right now in China, they have way too many people, and so a human life is not worth much there.  That, and worse, is our future if things keep going as they are.  If we do not get serious about birth control being readily available for all, then the future is going to be very grim.

(June 18, 2015 at 12:59 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I know none of this applies to you at all, since you never said this was what morality is based on, and you wrote a well thoguht about post about morality earlier. I just wanted to make sure you understood where I was coming from when I made that statement.

I also wanted to address one thing regarding you statement above, and something one of those pictures said. In your statement above, you said "atheism is not a doctrine, it is the lack of a belief in a god."

I agree with you there. All atheism means is that you don't believe in God. That's it. So then why does that last picture say "learn more about atheism?" If atheism is just "I don't believe in God", then what is there to learn?

What there is to learn is that morality does not depend on the existence of a god.  Killing people for fun is wrong, regardless of whether there is a god or not.  A god changes nothing for how one ought to live one's life.

The divine command theory of morality is morally bankrupt, a simple 'might makes right' mentality, that one must obey god or get punished.  This could also be called the "bully theory of morality," where one is to obey or get beat up.  That is not morality.

The story of Abraham and Isaac is a horrible story of gross immorality.  A man is ready to kill his son just because he is told to do it.  And god is happy that Abraham is willing to be immoral when told to be immoral.  This is a very bad message, and shows how corrupting of morality religion often is.  So not only is religion not the source of morality, it is often the source of immorality.


You and I agree that overpopulation is a problem.  Notice, your belief in a god and my lack of such belief does not alter this.  It is irrelevant whether there is a god or not for such matters.  I am sure that there are many other things about morality about which we agree.

(June 18, 2015 at 12:59 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It does seem sometimes, ironically enough, that some atheists will treat their non-belief in God as a religion. Obviously, there is no God involved so it's not really a religion, but sometimes it just seems like it gets treated that way by atheists themselves. And what I mean by "like a religion" is that sometimes it seems like atheism is a "group" of people with the same set of philosophical ideals who like to talk about how wrong everyone else is and about how they hold the right answer. And while that's ok, it just seems strange to me because all atheism is supposed to be is just a disbelief in God, and yet it seems like more than that sometimes.

No one is just an atheist.  Atheists, like other people, have other ideas.  And their other ideas are relevant to what you are stating.  Of course, atheists do not form a monolithic group, and have substantial disagreements with each other.  There are plenty of atheists with false ideas about a lot of things.

They do, of course, all have in common that they don't believe in a god.  And many have many other things in common.  Just like you and I have in common our opinion about overpopulation being a bad thing.

Also, the story of Abraham (and others of a like nature) does explain why some atheists have a great zeal about trying to get people to stop being religious, as religion is a source of great immorality.  That zeal can seem religious.  So I certainly understand your comments on that.

(June 18, 2015 at 12:59 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: And I'm really sorry if that last paragraph came out sounding rude. I do not mean to be rude or condecending at all. It's just that this has been my observation and I wanted to share it with you here and see what your thoughts are.

It is not rude, or at least I have not taken it that way, so no worries on that.




Looking at posts since this one (this thread grows very fast), I think you might want to take a look at Bertrand Russell's essay "Why I am not a Christian."  It is a short essay in which he explains, among other things, defects in Jesus' character.  You can read it online for free:

http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

(June 18, 2015 at 1:37 pm)Iroscato Wrote: This life is the only one which we can all be 100% certain is real. Therefore, all other considerations must by definition come second. The reverse sets an extremely dangerous precedent that has been played out countless times through history, as pointed out abovem

If believing in an afterlife means a person stops caring so much about material possessions and superficial things, and starts looking more out at the big picture verses just selfishly on themselves, then I think this is very positive. Even if it ends up not being true.