Catholics are going to hell and the Pope is taking them

[Mowgli1647545497]

And this is the problem with religion.

That and the fact that nobody reads shit and jumps to conclusions.

As for priests being there to help relay a message to God? Is that implying God can't can't hear or understand your prayers? As if God would need "help." He Wouldn't be God then would he?

... nobody reads shit and jumps to conclusions.

 

*echo echo echo*

 

 

Psst: atheism is a religion.

 

BTW - If I'm going to hell I'm pretty sure it has to do with marathon fapping and not the pope.

[Otis Nice]

Protestant preachers give advice on how to pray just like catholic priests.

 

True, they just do it in 1/4 the time.

 

BTW - If I'm going to hell I'm pretty sure it has to do with marathon fapping and not the pope.

 

Congrats on the first quote to ever make my sig....which really means absolutely nothing other than the fact that I found this hilarious. +rep.

[RC K9]

Mowgli, what did you mean by "what kind of atonement makes sense." Do you mean, figure out what kind of right you can do to make up for the wrong? Please clarify.

[Mowgli1647545497]

Sure just like that. The idea being they've heard it all before and can put your slip up into context. They also can help you with the relationship issues it created here on earth. Remember this tradition dates back before marraige councilers and personal therapists.

 

Whatever "stain" the sin did on your soul is still between you and god to square. The priest is just the earthly advisor, being officially on god's team as it were, to help you balance the scales *on earth*. *Good* priests wshould be talking to you about what you did, and the good ones will tell you stuff like "well you need to go talk to so n so and tell them you stole their whatchamacallit" etc. They shouldnt just be saying like "give me 25 hail marys, throw a 20spot in the donation jar and high five me on the way out the door".

 

Catholics don't get into heaven by confessing and going to church and all that. although everyone outside thinks thats what they think, and hell many catholics think that too. They got it all wrong though. All the rituals and practices are just there as comforting reminders. Little vignettes of time to take out of your day, doing some action thats familiar thru repetition, to free your mind for the contemplation. They're not there as entrance exams.

 

Alas alot of people confuse the ritual with the religion.

 

BTW - I'm not a practicing catholic. Just a catholic. But just like when I got orders in the military I consider myself able to distiinguish between "the letter of the order" and its "commander's intent". Pilots had to be able to think on their feet away from the handholding of command.

 

I look upon organized religion the same manner. They are organized ways for someone not to be an asshole. The idea being that if you're taking time regularly to think about the consequences and meaning of your actions, the less likely you are to continue doing bad ones, which hurt both you and those around you, and the world at large (in an osmosis kind of way).

 

But they aren't meant as get out of jail free cards or excuses to go BE an asshole the rest of the week.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Mowgli

[Slowbalt]

That and the fact that nobody reads shit and jumps to conclusions.

 

Psst: atheism is a religion.

 

.

 

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

Saying Atheism is a religion is like saying "bald" is a hair color. There is no "Atheist Doctrine". Some might say "There are no gods" while others might say "I do not believe in gods" but I believe that gods could possibly exist such as unicorns and FSM may possibly exist. I find it very unlikely but there are many things we do not yet understand. Ultimately I guess my point is that laws should not be based using religious justification alone.

[ImUrOBGYN]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

Saying Atheism is a religion is like saying "bald" is a hair color. There is no "Atheist Doctrine". Some might say "There are no gods" while others might say "I do not believe in gods" but I believe that gods could possibly exist such as unicorns and FSM may possibly exist. I find it very unlikely but there are many things we do not yet understand. Ultimately I guess my point is that laws should not be based using religious justification alone.

 

Perhaps you're agnostic? If I must be labeled, this is what I consider myself. Here's a little wiki info:

 

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

[sol740]

Being agnostic is simply being atheist while practicing a healthy dose of ones own skepticism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also I would consider myself agnostic but ... I'm just not sure yet.

[ImUrOBGYN]

Being agnostic is simply being atheist while practicing a healthy dose of ones own skepticism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also I would consider myself agnostic but ... I'm just not sure yet.

 

lol

[Littleguy]

Perhaps you're agnostic? If I must be labeled, this is what I consider myself. Here's a little wiki info:

 

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

 

I thought "you people" worshiped chicken bones and household cleaning products? Bwahahahahahaha :bangbang:

[Mowgli1647545497]

The all emcompassing omniscience of wiki aside..:rollseyes

 

Atheism is a system of belief(s). A system based on belief is, oh I don't know, whats the word, oh yeah, a religion.

 

Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. Boiled down, believing something without proof is a belief. That belief is correctly labeled religion. Organized or not. Individual or not. Its a belief system. Its religion.

 

Semantics? Yes.

 

The point being, atheists have no greater claim to enlightenment than those of any "religious" nature. Its all just belief.

[Mowgli1647545497]

But since we're here, here's a thought exercise, made up by yours truly, that I like to endulge.

 

Being a scientist by education (I've got two worthless Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineer degrees), I'm well aware of most of the laws of physics and intimately familiar with the scientific method, and have a passing understanding of quantum mechanics and a familiarization with how laws of science come into being.

 

So one tenant physics and quantum mechanics and indeed the scientific method tells us is that one cannot completely describe a system by being embedded in that system. Indeed one cannot even observe a system without altering it, but lets ignore that since its moot and keep to the former.

 

Now imagine the universe as a cup of coffee. Or rather a thermos with a lid on it. Its a good analogy: we know the universe to be a closed system. By definition then, we are in the coffee. And so is everything we can see touch smell taste affect or be affected by. Time is of the coffee. So is math. So is logic. All these concepts are in the coffee cup, they are a part of the coffee cup/thermos. So are any deductive tools that reasoning creatures living in the coffee may bend toward any imaginative or deductive problem. Proofs? PArt of the coffee. Theorems? PArt of the coffee. Love and belief and emotion? Part of the coffee. And so on.

 

Now, as we sit here in our coffee thinking about this and that, turning our brain synapses to this or that concept, we're doing pretty good describing the coffee.

 

Now, describe for me the outside of the mug.

 

Or the table its sitting on.

 

Or the kitchen its sitting in.

 

Or the cook.

 

------------

 

You can't.

 

------------

 

I like to remind my scientist colleagues, after they've used logic and reasoning to "prove" god can't exist, that not only are they demontrating a distinct lack of good imagination, but they are also violating a core tenant of science. They are therefore not very good scientists.

 

They hate that.

[Littleguy]

But since we're here, here's a thought exercise, made up by yours truly, that I like to endulge.

 

Being a scientist by education (I've got two worthless Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineer degrees), I'm well aware of most of the laws of physics and intimately familiar with the scientific method, and have a passing understanding of quantum mechanics and a familiarization with how laws of science come into being.

 

So one tenant physics and quantum mechanics and indeed the scientific method tells us is that one cannot completely describe a system by being embedded in that system. Indeed one cannot even observe a system without altering it, but lets ignore that since its moot and keep to the former.

 

Now imagine the universe as a cup of coffee. Or rather a thermos with a lid on it. Its a good analogy: we know the universe to be a closed system. By definition then, we are in the coffee. And so is everything we can see touch smell taste affect or be affected by. Time is of the coffee. So is math. So is logic. All these concepts are in the coffee cup, they are a part of the coffee cup/thermos. So are any deductive tools that reasoning creatures living in the coffee may bend toward any imaginative or deductive problem. Proofs? PArt of the coffee. Theorems? PArt of the coffee. Love and belief and emotion? Part of the coffee. And so on.

 

Now, as we sit here in our coffee thinking about this and that, turning our brain synapses to this or that concept, we're doing pretty good describing the coffee.

 

Now, describe for me the outside of the mug.

 

Or the table its sitting on.

 

Or the kitchen its sitting in.

 

Or the cook.

 

------------

 

You can't.

 

------------

 

I like to remind my scientist colleagues, after they've used logic and reasoning to "prove" god can't exist, that not only are they demontrating a distinct lack of good imagination, but they are also violating a core tenant of science. They are therefore not very good scientists.

 

They hate that.

 

Stephen Hawking was on Larry King Live last week along with the co-author of his new book, a catholic priest (I forget the name atm), and Deepak Chopra (sp?). They had a very interesting discussion on religion and science as it relates to Hawking's new book. Your exercise reminded me of it.

[wnaplay1647545503]

When I die I am going to wing it if there is in fact a god. It usually works. I think if there is a god, he/she is probably 1/2 way smart. I think they will be more concerned with how I lived my life rather than if I went around saying I was religeous.

[sol740]

 

The point being, atheists have no greater claim to enlightenment than those of any "religious" nature. Its all just belief.

 

The difference to me would be in the use of the word enlightenment. To be truly atheist in today's world, is to admit, that the only thing you know for sure is ... that you don't know for sure.

 

Also to have faith demands ones undivided loyalty in the face of *whatever*. The Devil and God (yes it was God responsible) working poor Job over is a perfect example of how the religious prepare the flock to deal with wavering faith. Look at what Job endured ... surely you can at least suffer through Sunday tithe. An atheist is much more likely to change their view in regards to evidence of the contrary. For instance, if Allah were to come down from the heavens and greet me personally, and deliver me 70 18+ virgins, I would be very likely to just throw my hands up in the air and say "yup ... looks like that's solved".

[Mowgli1647545497]

Also to have faith demands ones undivided loyalty in the face of *whatever*. The Devil and God (yes it was God responsible) working poor Job over is a perfect example of how the religious prepare the flock to deal with wavering faith.

 

Maybe as preached by backwoods hicks... not anybody I'd listen to.

 

Also, nothing gets "demanded" of me. Its sort of the point of free will.

 

Of course, like having kids requires no intelligence, one doesn't need two brain cells to rub together to preach, just some idiot(s) willing to listen

[sol740]

Of course, like having kids requires no intelligence, one doesn't need two brain cells to rub together to preach, just some idiot(s) willing to listen

 

LOL, I agree.

 

Though faith is part of most religion (particularly monotheistic) whether one admits to it or not ("having faith or not having" being a verb). I would also argue free-will is simply just not possible within the confines of a dimension where a being, entity, deity is privy to knowing all that can and will happen. Though that usually gets chickened and egged pretty quick.

 

Maybe as preached by backwoods hicks... not anybody I'd listen to.

 

 

The story from my point of view is this. God if he exists as he does in the story is an impish brat, who for some reason unknown to all feels compelled to use a being of his making that he supposedly "loves" to one-up an ethereal being (the Devil, Lucifer, The Fallen One), also of his making, to basically have a cosmic case of the "I TOLD YOU SO'S". Hmmm, lets kill everyone Job loves, take away his good fortune, and cover him in boils so I can prove to a being, one that I could snap my fingers and make disappear forever, that one's faith would not waiver ?

 

What makes more sense to you ?

 

A. Totally sensible story about God's love for his devoted and vice versa ?

 

B. Thematic device for preachers.

[Mowgli1647545497]

I think your problem is you are taking parable stories gestated in the culture and context of dozens centuries ago and assuming they are meant to be believed and acted upon as literal.

 

Also, you're projecting an assumption about lack of free will as imposed by the omniscience of a creator being enforced dogma upon its members.

 

Neither is true.

 

I've never in 42 years of catholicism been mandated to take the bible as literal truth. Or to accept someone else's (the priest's) conclusions from it. I've always heard those in the church saying things like think about that, draw your own conclusions. etc. Maybe I've gone to remarkable and above average churchs, but I doubt it.

 

Also, free will, choice, is a core tenant of catholicism. You can *choose* good, aka god, or the opposite, which for literary narrative purposes we've called satan (its easier to write about polar opposites if you can anthropomorphize the concepts).

 

As I view the parable you allude to I draw one conclusion. God couldn't engrain a true free will into his universe, a nondeterministic nature, without two things: time, and a polar choice. So he needed the concept of evil to exist in order for sentience individuals to be truly able to exercise that choice. so yeah, he made it all. I don't see any self-contradicting end goals there at all.

 

This whole concept of a vengeful god is something that has fallen *way* out of vogue (again except for those fiery 2-brain-celled hick preachers out in B.F.E.), but its one that I see alot of non-catholics attach with glue to their impression of the church. I've never once heard a wrath and damnation sermon in my entire life, and I've been dragged to mass since the sixties.

 

Again, I no longer go all that much, maybe a couple times a year in a good year. I feel I "got it" and am set up ok. But every now and then I dip my toes back in for some nostaliga and all the comfort that can come from that. Every time I revisit a mass I come away with the feeling that "nope, they havent gone off the deep end."

 

Now ask me about Quran burning preachers in Florida....

 

-------------

 

BTW - free will, and time with it, may in fact be an illusion, or rather an artificial construct, to an all powerful being, but that doesnt mean they aren't real *for us*. In fact, imo, time is more interesting than free will, but they are interlinked. I think I posted some thoughts about this in here a few years back, I'll see if I can find the thread. Fun stuff to think on.

[Mowgli1647545497]

Found the thread:

 

http://www.columbusracing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27198&highlight=free

Edited September 20, 2010 by Mowgli