Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Theism - The feel in your head

1235711

Comments

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,261
    LadyRhian said:

    So not funny.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/10/archbishops-computer-contained-over-100000-child-porn-files/

    Archbishop’s computer contained over 100,000 child porn files

    *** UPDATE ***

    Wesolowski died on August 27, 2015, while living in the Vatican under house arrest. He was never prosecuted for his crimes.

    Ouch. Isn't it time mankind abandoned these horrible institutions?

    LadyRhian
  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,652
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,000
    The Catholic church is more than a little corrupt. Its almost like people are ignoring hundreds of years of history.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,261
    ThacoBell said:

    The Catholic church is more than a little corrupt. Its almost like people are ignoring hundreds of years of history.

    More like a thousand years. And their history does nothing to convince me they shouldn't be abolished, on the contrary.

    ThacoBell
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 3,644
    Abolishing it will essentially ensure it will exist for another 1000 years. It'll die a slow death without 'abolishment'. Unless by abolishment you mean eliminating Catholicism and all it's proponents and constituents. Good luck with that. That was done by the Soviet Union and lo and behold as soon as the USSR collapsed, the church reappeared as if by magic...

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,261
    Balrog99 said:

    Abolishing it will essentially ensure it will exist for another 1000 years. It'll die a slow death without 'abolishment'. Unless by abolishment you mean eliminating Catholicism and all it's proponents and constituents. Good luck with that. That was done by the Soviet Union and lo and behold as soon as the USSR collapsed, the church reappeared as if by magic...

    Russia isn't a catholic country, wtf

  • Dev6Dev6 Member Posts: 678

    Balrog99 said:

    Abolishing it will essentially ensure it will exist for another 1000 years. It'll die a slow death without 'abolishment'. Unless by abolishment you mean eliminating Catholicism and all it's proponents and constituents. Good luck with that. That was done by the Soviet Union and lo and behold as soon as the USSR collapsed, the church reappeared as if by magic...

    Russia isn't a catholic country, wtf
    Orthodox. Same shit, different name. It's about damn time all religion was abolished.

  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 11,613
    You can't "abolish religion." People have a right to believe in God.

    ThacoBellBalrog99
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,261
    Dev6 said:

    Balrog99 said:

    Abolishing it will essentially ensure it will exist for another 1000 years. It'll die a slow death without 'abolishment'. Unless by abolishment you mean eliminating Catholicism and all it's proponents and constituents. Good luck with that. That was done by the Soviet Union and lo and behold as soon as the USSR collapsed, the church reappeared as if by magic...

    Russia isn't a catholic country, wtf
    Orthodox. Same shit, different name. It's about damn time all religion was abolished.
    I agree, but it was silly to draw USSR into a discussion about catholicism, I think.

    You can't "abolish religion." People have a right to believe in God.

    Of course you can. You probably mean "you shouldn't". What I mean is the catholics themselves should make the decision to abolish their own institution, not that they should be forced.

  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,652
    It would be easier to just let it die out on its own. Persecution merely deepens faith. The reason the Puritan left Holland, where their beliefs were accepted, and went to America to suffer is because their children were adopting Dutch customs and falling away from the Church. They *had* religious freedom in Holland. They didn't need to go to America to try and find it.

    Balrog99
  • DrHappyAngryDrHappyAngry Member Posts: 818
    Balrog99 said:

    Abolishing it will essentially ensure it will exist for another 1000 years. It'll die a slow death without 'abolishment'. Unless by abolishment you mean eliminating Catholicism and all it's proponents and constituents. Good luck with that. That was done by the Soviet Union and lo and behold as soon as the USSR collapsed, the church reappeared as if by magic...

    It really never went away, Yuri Gagarin (The first man in space) was a devout follower of Easter Orthodoxy. Sure they could make atheism the official party line, but religion wasn't something you could just get rid of.

    ThacoBellBalrog99
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,214
    edited October 2018
    Dev6 said:

    Balrog99 said:

    Abolishing it will essentially ensure it will exist for another 1000 years. It'll die a slow death without 'abolishment'. Unless by abolishment you mean eliminating Catholicism and all it's proponents and constituents. Good luck with that. That was done by the Soviet Union and lo and behold as soon as the USSR collapsed, the church reappeared as if by magic...

    Russia isn't a catholic country, wtf
    Orthodox. Same shit, different name. It's about damn time all religion was abolished.
    this is a good moment to note that not even the name is truly different: eastern orthodox church is also catholic. it's actual name is "orthodox catholic church".
    while roman catholics don't call themselves orthodox, they, like every denomination, really do consider themselves to be orthodox. orthodox in this context just means "the real & authentic", so it's hardly even a distinctive part of the name, more like a tagline. that's why 'eastern' can't be omitted, when referring to eastern orthodoxy (also: why 'roman' can't be omitted from roman catholic)

    catholic just means universal, so catholic church means a "church for all of humanity"

    so yeah, it's really a thousand year old dispute between The Universal Church vs The Real Universal Church. that's how lame it is.

    FinneousPJThacoBellBalrog99
  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,652
    bob_veng said:

    Dev6 said:

    Balrog99 said:

    Abolishing it will essentially ensure it will exist for another 1000 years. It'll die a slow death without 'abolishment'. Unless by abolishment you mean eliminating Catholicism and all it's proponents and constituents. Good luck with that. That was done by the Soviet Union and lo and behold as soon as the USSR collapsed, the church reappeared as if by magic...

    Russia isn't a catholic country, wtf
    Orthodox. Same shit, different name. It's about damn time all religion was abolished.
    this is a good moment to note that not even the name is truly different: eastern orthodox church is also catholic. it's actual name is "orthodox catholic church".
    while roman catholics don't call themselves orthodox, they, like every denomination, really do consider themselves to be orthodox. orthodox in this context just means "the real & authentic", so it's hardly even a distinctive part of the name, more like a tagline. that's why 'eastern' can't be omitted, when referring to eastern orthodoxy (also: why 'roman' can't be omitted from roman catholic)

    catholic just means universal, so catholic church means a "church for all of humanity"

    so yeah, it's really a thousand year old dispute between The Universal Church vs The Real Universal Church. that's how lame it is.
    Which reminds me of an old joke. "Psst... Give mr $200 or I'll call your religion a Cult."

    FinneousPJ
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 3,644
    LadyRhian said:

    bob_veng said:

    Dev6 said:

    Balrog99 said:

    Abolishing it will essentially ensure it will exist for another 1000 years. It'll die a slow death without 'abolishment'. Unless by abolishment you mean eliminating Catholicism and all it's proponents and constituents. Good luck with that. That was done by the Soviet Union and lo and behold as soon as the USSR collapsed, the church reappeared as if by magic...

    Russia isn't a catholic country, wtf
    Orthodox. Same shit, different name. It's about damn time all religion was abolished.
    this is a good moment to note that not even the name is truly different: eastern orthodox church is also catholic. it's actual name is "orthodox catholic church".
    while roman catholics don't call themselves orthodox, they, like every denomination, really do consider themselves to be orthodox. orthodox in this context just means "the real & authentic", so it's hardly even a distinctive part of the name, more like a tagline. that's why 'eastern' can't be omitted, when referring to eastern orthodoxy (also: why 'roman' can't be omitted from roman catholic)

    catholic just means universal, so catholic church means a "church for all of humanity"

    so yeah, it's really a thousand year old dispute between The Universal Church vs The Real Universal Church. that's how lame it is.
    Which reminds me of an old joke. "Psst... Give mr $200 or I'll call your religion a Cult."
    That works the opposite way too.
    "Pssst... Give me $200 and I'll call your cult a religion."

    FinneousPJThacoBellLadyRhian
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,261
    edited October 2018
    I wonder how do theists rationalise different denominations not to mention religions. If there were some great truth to be discovered, you would expect religious doctrines to be converging towards that. Instead they diverge. Why is that?

    Zaghoul
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 6,191
    As someone who served as an altar boy nearly every Saturday night for at least 3 or 4 years, SOMETHING has to be done in regards to the Catholic Church. Sure individual priests have gone to prison, but this is an organization that was engaged in a literal world-wide cover-up of sex crimes against children. But what?? The church is it's own country. It has diplomats and ambassadors.

    FinneousPJBalrog99ThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,000

    I wonder how do theists rationalise different denominations not to mention religions. If there were some great truth to be discovered, you would expect religious doctrines to be converging towards that. Instead they diverge. Why is that?

    I mean, beliefs are varied just like people are (flying spaghetti monster anyone?). What would you consider converging? There is a split between atheism and theisim, so you could make the argument that one of those is converging closer to the truth. What about monotheism and polytheism? One is closer than the other. With new ideas and generations there will undoubtedly be new relifgions popping up all over the place, will they follow a certain trend over time? Could that be considered converging? What religions that follow some "universal secrets known only to an elect few?" If they happen to be right, wouldn't it mean the opposite, and that any religions that branch away from common structure be closer to the truth? There a LOT of variables to cover for, and this question could be answered any number of ways.

    Zaghoul
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,261
    ThacoBell said:

    I wonder how do theists rationalise different denominations not to mention religions. If there were some great truth to be discovered, you would expect religious doctrines to be converging towards that. Instead they diverge. Why is that?

    I mean, beliefs are varied just like people are (flying spaghetti monster anyone?). What would you consider converging? There is a split between atheism and theisim, so you could make the argument that one of those is converging closer to the truth. What about monotheism and polytheism? One is closer than the other. With new ideas and generations there will undoubtedly be new relifgions popping up all over the place, will they follow a certain trend over time? Could that be considered converging? What religions that follow some "universal secrets known only to an elect few?" If they happen to be right, wouldn't it mean the opposite, and that any religions that branch away from common structure be closer to the truth? There a LOT of variables to cover for, and this question could be answered any number of ways.
    New religions popping up I would consider the opposite of convergence... Monotheism vs. polytheism is a good one, why hasn't one of them died out if one is closer to the truth?

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,000
    @FinneousPJ I'd say as long as people come up with ideas, new things will always pop up as outlets for those ideas. Anything from literature, to governments, game, and even religion.

    Zaghoul
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,261
    ThacoBell said:

    @FinneousPJ I'd say as long as people come up with ideas, new things will always pop up as outlets for those ideas. Anything from literature, to governments, game, and even religion.

    Right, but if there were some religious truth to be discovered, why do the religions not converge on it?

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,000

    ThacoBell said:

    @FinneousPJ I'd say as long as people come up with ideas, new things will always pop up as outlets for those ideas. Anything from literature, to governments, game, and even religion.

    Right, but if there were some religious truth to be discovered, why do the religions not converge on it?
    Again, what would you see as converging? If my religious history isn't way off, I think a lot of polytheistic religions have fallen by the wayside, while monotheistic ones seem to have endured better in modern times. You even see different religons arising as combinations of others. Based on what I've heard from the local community and pamphlets that have been handed out, Sikh seems to be monotheistic (At least in terms of there being an ultimate god being) , but takes elements from Christianity, Mormons, and a couple other religions.

    Zaghoul
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,000
    Actually, you wouldn't necessarily continually move forward either. Even in science, where we have actual measurable phenomena, its not unheard of for an entire foundation of a discipline to be completely upheaved as understanding of our world improves and changes (Newton's "universal" laws vs. Quantum Mechanics anyone?). So even assuming some religious convergance, it could be in flux due to better understanding, or someone abusing religion for power, or any other number of factors.

    semiticgodZaghoul
  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,652
    ThacoBell said:

    ThacoBell said:

    @FinneousPJ I'd say as long as people come up with ideas, new things will always pop up as outlets for those ideas. Anything from literature, to governments, game, and even religion.

    Right, but if there were some religious truth to be discovered, why do the religions not converge on it?
    Again, what would you see as converging? If my religious history isn't way off, I think a lot of polytheistic religions have fallen by the wayside, while monotheistic ones seem to have endured better in modern times. You even see different religons arising as combinations of others. Based on what I've heard from the local community and pamphlets that have been handed out, Sikh seems to be monotheistic (At least in terms of there being an ultimate god being) , but takes elements from Christianity, Mormons, and a couple other religions.
    Well, with the exception of Aten-worship in Egypt, Mithraism...

    Here's a list of current world religions:
    http://www.humanreligions.info/religions.html

    ThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,000
    Thanks for the list! Its super interesting.

  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,652
  • ZaghoulZaghoul Member, Moderator Posts: 3,565
    edited October 2018

    I wonder how do theists rationalise different denominations not to mention religions. If there were some great truth to be discovered, you would expect religious doctrines to be converging towards that. Instead they diverge. Why is that?

    @FinneousPJ A good question. I think @ThacoBell has had some good answers so far. It depends so much on individual interpretation, personal conviction, different religions, and individual and group needs that it cannot be answered simply for all.
    I think we would have to narrow the focus of this question down a bit to get all of the answers being asked here.
    • Theists cannot all be grouped as one in terms of how they rationalize other religions (I could give my own personal views over 50 years and time spent deeply involved with both the academic and religious study and practice (some complete opposites) of various religions but again, it would just be my own view as to how I rationalized it). I will say it can be quite simple, or quite hard, depending on how militant or accommodating I was at the time.
    • Different interpretations of the same holy writ open up different views, so different denominations emerge
    • Different religions have different truths they may search for
    • Some religions see themselves as already already knowing (or at least believing) at what is the great truth
    • As religious doctrine vary greatly among hundreds of religions they will not be converging to the same truth as that truth is different for many

    Hmm. Just as an idea, I suppose if we asked something similar of politics we might find some of the same motivations and rationalizations. Maybe a close question for comparison that might be of help (maybe not though) would be "How do politicians in the US rationalize other political parties (democrat, republican, libertarian,etc.) and view other political systems other than democracy? Why has one not arrived at what is the most perfect system for all." We don't really need to discuss this but for some reason I think it somewhat similar.
    We would probably get many a differing view on this in the same fashion, or at least I would expect anyway. But just as not all atheists and agnostics come to their views in the same fashion, experiences, and rationalizations, so is the same with many religious folks. Human interpretation and belief or non belief in a cause or subject is an interesting topic, in religion and even in science.

    ThacoBell
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,214
    edited October 2018
    religions/cults need miracles to get going, and rely on miracles and ritual throughout, not on philosophical "great truths". every new religion/cult is less persuasive than the last one because their claims of miracles can ever more easily be refuted as false and silly, and therefore new religions make the old ones look bad, so they're not getting along that great.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 8,000
    bob_veng said:

    religions/cults need miracles to get going, and rely on miracles and ritual throughout, not on philosophical "great truths". every new religion/cult is less persuasive than the last one because their claims of miracles can ever more easily be refuted as false and silly, and therefore new religions make the old ones look bad, so they're not getting along that great.

    Only if the religion is miracle based. Any philosophy can be religious, it all depends on how much value you put on it.

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 3,644
    The only miracle that matters is life after death. Most religions believe in that in one way or another.

    ThacoBell
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,261
    ThacoBell said:

    ThacoBell said:

    @FinneousPJ I'd say as long as people come up with ideas, new things will always pop up as outlets for those ideas. Anything from literature, to governments, game, and even religion.

    Right, but if there were some religious truth to be discovered, why do the religions not converge on it?
    Again, what would you see as converging? If my religious history isn't way off, I think a lot of polytheistic religions have fallen by the wayside, while monotheistic ones seem to have endured better in modern times. You even see different religons arising as combinations of others. Based on what I've heard from the local community and pamphlets that have been handed out, Sikh seems to be monotheistic (At least in terms of there being an ultimate god being) , but takes elements from Christianity, Mormons, and a couple other religions.
    Convergence would be the dying off of false ideas and prevalence of true ideas. I don't see that as happening. For example, if Jesus is part of a trinity god (or whatever), why do the Jews and Muslims in the same tradition disagree? Why do Hindus disagree about the whole abrahamic tradition? Who is correct?
    ThacoBell said:

    Actually, you wouldn't necessarily continually move forward either. Even in science, where we have actual measurable phenomena, its not unheard of for an entire foundation of a discipline to be completely upheaved as understanding of our world improves and changes (Newton's "universal" laws vs. Quantum Mechanics anyone?). So even assuming some religious convergance, it could be in flux due to better understanding, or someone abusing religion for power, or any other number of factors.

    That's a bad example, because Newtons laws don't even attempt to explain quantum mechanical facts. That's like saying electrical engineering cannot explain tectonic plates. So what?
    LadyRhian said:

    ThacoBell said:

    ThacoBell said:

    @FinneousPJ I'd say as long as people come up with ideas, new things will always pop up as outlets for those ideas. Anything from literature, to governments, game, and even religion.

    Right, but if there were some religious truth to be discovered, why do the religions not converge on it?
    Again, what would you see as converging? If my religious history isn't way off, I think a lot of polytheistic religions have fallen by the wayside, while monotheistic ones seem to have endured better in modern times. You even see different religons arising as combinations of others. Based on what I've heard from the local community and pamphlets that have been handed out, Sikh seems to be monotheistic (At least in terms of there being an ultimate god being) , but takes elements from Christianity, Mormons, and a couple other religions.
    Well, with the exception of Aten-worship in Egypt, Mithraism...

    Here's a list of current world religions:
    http://www.humanreligions.info/religions.html
    Thanks. I doubt that's comprehensive, though.
    Zaghoul said:

    I wonder how do theists rationalise different denominations not to mention religions. If there were some great truth to be discovered, you would expect religious doctrines to be converging towards that. Instead they diverge. Why is that?

    @FinneousPJ A good question. I think @ThacoBell has had some good answers so far. It depends so much on individual interpretation, personal conviction, different religions, and individual and group needs that it cannot be answered simply for all.
    I think we would have to narrow the focus of this question down a bit to get all of the answers being asked here.
    • Theists cannot all be grouped as one in terms of how they rationalize other religions (I could give my own personal views over 50 years and time spent deeply involved with both the academic and religious study and practice (some complete opposites) of various religions but again, it would just be my own view as to how I rationalized it). I will say it can be quite simple, or quite hard, depending on how militant or accommodating I was at the time.
    • Different interpretations of the same holy writ open up different views, so different denominations emerge
    • Different religions have different truths they may search for
    • Some religions see themselves as already already knowing (or at least believing) at what is the great truth
    • As religious doctrine vary greatly among hundreds of religions they will not be converging to the same truth as that truth is different for many

    Hmm. Just as an idea, I suppose if we asked something similar of politics we might find some of the same motivations and rationalizations. Maybe a close question for comparison that might be of help (maybe not though) would be "How do politicians in the US rationalize other political parties (democrat, republican, libertarian,etc.) and view other political systems other than democracy? Why has one not arrived at what is the most perfect system for all." We don't really need to discuss this but for some reason I think it somewhat similar.
    We would probably get many a differing view on this in the same fashion, or at least I would expect anyway. But just as not all atheists and agnostics come to their views in the same fashion, experiences, and rationalizations, so is the same with many religious folks. Human interpretation and belief or non belief in a cause or subject is an interesting topic, in religion and even in science.
    "Different interpretations of the same holy writ open up different views, so different denominations emerge"

    How do we tell who is correct?

    "Different religions have different truths they may search for"

    What does that mean?

    "Some religions see themselves as already already knowing (or at least believing) at what is the great truth"

    Again, how do we tell who is correct?

    "As religious doctrine vary greatly among hundreds of religions they will not be converging to the same truth as that truth is different for many"

    Truth is objective, is it not?

    Politics is different, because they don't claim to have access to some supernatural truth. Religions do. Politics is opinion. Religious people claim their beliefs are true.
    bob_veng said:

    religions/cults need miracles to get going, and rely on miracles and ritual throughout, not on philosophical "great truths". every new religion/cult is less persuasive than the last one because their claims of miracles can ever more easily be refuted as false and silly, and therefore new religions make the old ones look bad, so they're not getting along that great.

    Do you believe miracles have occurred? Are they still occurring?
    ThacoBell said:

    bob_veng said:

    religions/cults need miracles to get going, and rely on miracles and ritual throughout, not on philosophical "great truths". every new religion/cult is less persuasive than the last one because their claims of miracles can ever more easily be refuted as false and silly, and therefore new religions make the old ones look bad, so they're not getting along that great.

    Only if the religion is miracle based. Any philosophy can be religious, it all depends on how much value you put on it.
    Wait, how do you define religion?
    Balrog99 said:

    The only miracle that matters is life after death. Most religions believe in that in one way or another.

    Do they have good reason to believe that, though?

    DrHappyAngry
This discussion has been closed.