Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

You must be repentant and resolve to sin no more. If you're not sorry for your sins, no absolution.

At least that's the theory.

Well I figured that goes without saying.

[FreshFish]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

I don't have a religion or spiritualness, and yet I still value kindness, generosity, caring and honesty. I don't see how being ethical, or a good person or the kind of person you would want as a friend is always linked to some religious belief. It is very possible to have values and ethics instilled in oneself from family, community, and experience interacting with others.
Does living and interacting with the world and other people count as a religion? If so, I guess that is what has instilled "religious values" in me.

It's merely a matter of definitions. Why do people exercise discipline and self-control? Why do people sometimes refrain from their own immediate self-gratification in order to benefit other people?

If, by definition, it is because of spiritual values, then the result is a tautology: It is what it is because that's what we say it is. To me the concept of a "secular religion" makes a good deal of sense; otherwise how could it be possible that we live in a civil society?

[FreshFish]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Humanism isn't a religion, it's, IMHO, just an ethical structure people have assigned to the irreligious who don't act like crazed lunatics.

Unless one, by definition, says the foundation that underlies "ethical structures" stems from spiritual values or whatever you want to call that act of self-discipline that allows us to cooperate with others by delaying immediate gratification in order to build human relationships with others.

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Unless one, by definition, says the foundation that underlies "ethical structures" stems from spiritual values or whatever you want to call that act of self-discipline that allows us to cooperate with others by delaying immediate gratification in order to build human relationships with others.

Where I come from we don't call that spiritual. We call it "growing up."

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

It's merely a matter of definitions. Why do people exercise discipline and self-control? Why do people sometimes refrain from their own immediate self-gratification in order to benefit other people?

If, by definition, it is because of spiritual values, then the result is a tautology: It is what it is because that's what we say it is. To me the concept of a "secular religion" makes a good deal of sense; otherwise how could it be possible that we live in a civil society?

But that's watering down the definition of religion to such an extent that it removes any concept of supernatural forces. To me, at least, religion implies something non-materialist.

I have found that those who insist that secular humanism is a "religion" are primarily those who are embarrassed that it does not have to rely on the booga booga magical hogwash that actual religions do. They are deliberately eliding the primary characteristic of a religion in order to try to wedge atheism into the definition because they don't have the courage to simply state that supernaturalism is a superior worldview. At least prior ages would defend their superstitions proudly and not try to backdoor them.

[unofan]

Unless one, by definition, says the foundation that underlies "ethical structures" stems from spiritual values or whatever you want to call that act of self-discipline that allows us to cooperate with others by delaying immediate gratification in order to build human relationships with others.

By that definition, religion and the condition of being religious becomes meaningless as it encompasses literally everyone.

[leswp1]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

joe and our other Catholics can help me, but I don't understand why what the wafer is before the blessing matters at all. The transubstantiation formula is x + in persona Christi = Jesus cutlet. x literally does not matter. It could be a Twinkie. Or a tire iron.

Edit. OK, a little bit of research and there are canon statements about this. Basically, Holy Mother Church (or the Whore of Babylon, depending on how you feel about Her) has statutes protecting Big Unleavened Bread.



The "reasons" offered in defense of this appear to be mere casuistry, or "C+ Catholicism." I doubt any decent Dr. RC Th. would even bother to defend them with anything more than "the Church says so and until She says different that's that. Ours not to wonder why."

I'm not diggin' this limitations on God stuff. God can turn Khloe Kardashian into the body and blood of Christ if He has a mind to. The priest is invoking God with the magic words. The tradition is comforting (and a boon to whichever Cardinal controls the contract) but it should not be regarded as necessary.

This is the sort of silliness that makes Protestants.

This. Saved me typing. Sounds like humans trying to make rules so they can pretend to be in control. IMHO Jesus would be shaking his head in disgust that we didn't get what he said over and over in Matthew- rules are stupid if they obsess on the minutia and miss the point. ANd how can stuff get corrupted? why is wheat cleaner than any other grain?

The Act of Contrition. Said as the priest is giving absolution.


You must be repentant and resolve to sin no more. If you're not sorry for your sins, no absolution.

At least that's the theory.

Well, that sets you up for failure because by definition Jesus died for our sins because we are incapable of living without sinning. I thought the belief was humans are imperfect and can't help sinning so if you promise not to do that aren't you lying?

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Well, that sets you up for failure because by definition Jesus died for our sins because we are incapable of living without sinning. I thought the belief was humans are imperfect and can't help sinning so if you promise not to do that aren't you lying?

Well, resolving to sin no more is not the same as promising to sin no more. If when you resolve you really mean it: you fully intend to lead a blameless life, then that's the best a human being can do.

[burd]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Well, resolving to sin no more is not the same as promising to sin no more. If when you resolve you really mean it: you fully intend to lead a blameless life, then that's the best a human being can do.

I've found the best way to survive with my soul intact is to be flexible in the definition of "sin."

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Sounds like humans trying to make rules so they can pretend to be in control.

This is the common sociological explanation of religion. Early man, fresh from the treetops, is alone in a lethal, uncaring cosmos. Much of what will determine his survival, let alone flourishing, is completely beyond his control. Early "science-like" experiments aren't very encouraging. Keeping halfway decent records turns up patterns in the seasons and the stars, but they are punctuated by horrific disasters from floods to eruptions to earthquakes to famines to infestations to the as-sholes over the next hill attacking, which have no pattern at all. What's a curious and imaginative but by now pretty darn worried proto-human to do?

Create a process where you do have control over these events. Say the right words, make the right sacrifices, think the right thoughts and you're safe. Even better, an infallible process, because if bad things happen it only means the priest f-cked up, kill him and do it right this time.

Enter religion.

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

I've found the best way to survive with my soul intact is to be flexible in the definition of "sin."

The televangelist solution. Very nice.

You can always claim to be gathering research.

[joecct]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Interesting read

https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/le...nd-the-monkeys

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Interesting read

https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/le...nd-the-monkeys

That is a good piece.

Frankly, I would have preferred that to have been the central Prosecution argument, since unconsciously that is the battle that has been going on for the last 150 years: there are those who believe mankind is responsible for all of its history, good and bad, and those who hold mankind responsible for the bad while ascribing the good to supernatural forces. That allows them to demand that mankind worship those forces and, incidentally, themselves as the gatekeepers of those forces.

That's the real argument, and I'd be happy to be in the lists. In OTL the religious view was set back centuries by Bryan's idiotic literalism and we will wait centuries for the religious side to catch up with Machen and make a decent argument. An argument that is faulty, but that would at least be interesting to refute.

And an argument, by the way, which might finally help religious people recognize that far from being alien concepts to atheists, the values of tolerance and respect for life are in fact our cornerstones, which we have fought hard -- and often against religious authorities -- to protect.

[leswp1]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Well, resolving to sin no more is not the same as promising to sin no more. If when you resolve you really mean it: you fully intend to lead a blameless life, then that's the best a human being can do.

But if you buy in to the deal that you can't help sinning (which they teach) then you resolving that means you aren't willing to believe the teaching. (If that makes sense0

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

But if you buy in to the deal that you can't help sinning (which they teach) then you resolving that means you aren't willing to believe the teaching. (If that makes sense0

The doctrine of Total Depravity is lazy and stupid. Augustine was overcompensating when he thunk it up and Calvin was playing out his personal neurosis when he wrote it down.

Any faith based on it is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Jesus would have scoffed at it as just another con by just another grasping guild of Pharisees.