Catholic Leadership Continues To Make Friends - Page 2

I'll just say that there are too many catholics I know - and people of plenty of religions, denominations and also coming from agnostic or atheist positions - who are essentially good people who are trying to make sense of their lives and the world around them that I can denigrate them for the personal truth they've chosen to try and make sense of their lives.

We are hard wired to try and make sense of the this life we've been given. To try and look for a truth bigger than ourselves (whether that be science or spirituality).

I just think if we all were more respectful of the fact that we all need something to make sense of our lives - without trying to be arrogant about or trying to push our personal truth on anyone else - the world may just tick over a lot smoother.

That's completely separate from peoples feelings on the Pope or radical mullahs or whatever. Everyone need to take a big fucking breathe and remember how to be just a little fucking polite to their nearest neighbour - regardless of their beliefs.

If they aint in your face don't get in theirs.

Now realistically, here's where I'm coming from - I'm a lapsed catholic - christened but never confirmed. been to secular, catholic and anglican schools. If there are belief structures that make sense to me they'd be buddhist and broader gnostic ideals as highlighted in the gnostic gospels and even the book of Judas (all of which spoke to me deeply after the fdeath of my own father from cancer over 14 years ago) - but at the end of the day I self identify as a true agnostic.

What if I want to get in your face, RD?

What are you going to do about it?

Well then you're no better than any asshole that wants to get in my face about anything - be it religion, politics or whatever.

Then fuck you I'll defend myself. Respect doesn't mean coddling assholes.

OMG you guiez, Rain Dog and I actually kind of sort of agree on something! First comes love, then comes marriage in a state that's not California, and then...I don't know what happens.

Anyway, I want to post more later when I'm not at work and running the risk of getting fired, but I did want to mention that this entire debate/conversation has made me rethink some things I've said in the past. Specifically, I went after Geoff Foster pretty heavily, and often, for his defense of people living in apartheid-era South Africa. While religion and politics are very different, they're often very similar, and in this case, what Geoff was saying about South Africans was not too different from what I'm saying now.

So, Geoff, I was wrong, and I apologize.

This is me. Getting up all in your face. Poking you on the shoulder with my finger.

Poke. Poke. Poke.

Defend yourself.

Just want to toss out my unconditional support for Cleo's message of religious intolerance. When it comes to mass delusion, the only position I find morally acceptable is total and complete opposition. If that means that I'm some sort of "bigot", so be it. I'm not fond of the word bigot, but if it's meant to imply that I have no respect or patience for bronze age belief systems, then I'll wear that label as a mark of pride

Hey, if your delusion brings you comfort and helps you be a nice person and gets you through the day, that's fine. It's when you start saying your delusion is the best delusion and should be everyone's delusion that you've crossed the line.

Note how I never called him or any of the rest of the boys club bigots? Because like religion, whoring is something I chose which means I have to take the shit along with the massive piles of cash. I know my job's awesome, so I don't get all flustered if someone wants to call me a disease ridden whore - I'm full of cold at the mo so it's fairly accurate, really.

Even when it's my own that I'm attacking? I wasn't raised Catholic - like most fundamentalists, my mum doesn't like Catholics one bit. But I was raised in a household where the kiddie science books had sharpie scribbled over certain passages, and where instead of normal childhood fears I was indoctrinated with the belief that the devil was trying to kill me because of my great Christian destiny (lol, I know, that worked out awesome), and if I ever thought about a demon I would probably get posessed.

You can break away from a culture if you choose to. A culture that made me mentally ill, uneducated and terrified is one I have no problems judging. And as far as I can tell, Catholics are worse.

Obviously I don't judge people like yourself who are ex-Catholic (or lapsed or fallen or whatever you see it as). I honestly don't see why you're offended by the 'bigotry' going on here - it's not directed at you. You're a person who has some beliefs to do with god and all that stuff, but don't buy into hateful religious dogma and don't stick a label on yourself to support them, while quietly disagreeing. You're not one of the people I'm fucked off with - I'm confused why you're defending them?

Yeah, but you aren't a Catholic, you're a former Catholic. I never said I hated former Catholics. Hell, unless they're directly fucking with me I'm not usually particularly harsh against Catholics who were raised that way - brainwashing sucks.

But again, I'm confused why you're offended. I don't get upset when people take the piss out of fundamentalist, creationist, pro-life freaks who believe in demon posession. Or vegetarians, for that matter. I was brainwashed that way, now I'm an ex-one. They aren't my people.

Do we call art "delusion"?

If that were the only application for such delusions, I generally wouldn't have a problem with say, a prisoner turning to "Jesus" to get through his day. However, the Jesus/Muhammad/Moses delusion routinely does great damage to society and civilization, and has been doing so for thousands of years. The comfort of that one prisoner cannot be my top concern. The needs of the many, and all that

Anyway, don't want to start a fight (I'm going off to post about movies now), just wanted to second Cleo's message and restate my thesis on religion

If people start thinking it's reality, yeah. If someone thought all movies were historical documents we'd probably call them delusional.

I was just using the term because it was used in the post I was responding to, nothing more.

So if you're religious, but don't consider your holy texts to be literal truth, then you're not delusional?

Not if they weren't intended to be taken as literal truth, no.

Personally, if someone believes in God, despite there being little to no evidence of his existence, then I think they're delusional. But they're far better off mentally than someone who thinks the Bible is word for word literal truth.

OK, sometime we have to agree on what religion is exactly.

Because not only here, but everywhere this conversation takes place, people on religion's side are really hard to exactly pin down. God exists. God is a metaphor for a universal consciousness. Hell exists. Hell doesn't exist. Hell exists in our minds. The Bible is literally the word of God. The Bible consists of metaphors. The Bible was simply inspired by God. Homosexuality is a mortal sin. Homosexuality is OK. Homosexuality is OK as long as you're not acting on it. Evil exists because of Satan. Evil exists because of free will. Evil exists as a test from god. And this is simply mainstream Christianity. Then you bring in all the other world religions and all the fringe stuff. And then you lay a guilt trip on top, refined through the centuries. Trying to argue against religion is about as frustrating a debate as possible and liable to provoke one to pronouncements far more stern than intended.

Not to mention the ultimate get out of jail card. "Belief is personal. It cannot be explained but must be experienced." How do you logically debate against that? At some point you almost have to say "You're deluding yourself" and just walk away.

Okay, Cleo, you and I are basically on the same page now that I understand where you're coming from. That's really all that I wanted, and while I might respond to your points in more detail, I (mostly) agree with you.

Good talk. Also, for the record, even though I've bounced around from Catholicism to Unitarian Universalism (still my favorite) to an extended period where I was very heavily into Judaism, I'd probably have to label myself as an athiest.

This. Take inspiration from it. Use them as parables to reflect on your life. It's not a handbook.

Intentionality's a bogus factor. You can't establish absolute intentionality with texts that were written 10 years ago, much less texts that were written 20 or 30 centuries ago.

Catholics don't believe that the bible is word-for-word literal truth - so they're on the less delusional side, then?

This looks like it's gonna turn into an argument for the sake of arguing. Yes, Catholics are less delusional than a Christian fundamentalist who believes every single word of the Bible to be literal truth. They're still a lot wackier than someone who prays every now and again and believes in an afterlife but doesn't think much harder than that. It's a scale, not a binary.

In all of the centuries in which it's existed, philosophers, scholars, theologians and many of the world's greatest thinkers haven't been able to do that. So have at it, CHUD board: go. define religion.

This should be fun. Remember to account for polytheisms, monotheisms, atheistic religions, literalism, inerrantism, fundamentalism, progressive sects, conservative sects, and all other longstanding systems of belief that have come to be called "religion." I know you have it in you. I bet a few of you guys even have college degrees, so you should have it over Aquinas, Maimonides, and Kierkegaard, right?

Then we'll work on that pesky "art" thing so that the video gamers can be happy.

Some terms are intrinsically ambiguous. I realize the intent here is to pin religion down so that it can be "disproven" by reason, but that's simply not the nature of the term. It's expansive, ambiguous, and flexible, possibly by design.

Andrew - I dunno, it looks more like an attempt at introducing nuance to me. I don't want to speak for DaveB, mind. Plus, I'm usually wrong about these things.

Yeah, kinda disagree with her here. Obvs.

A religion is a philosophy or organized set of principles that includes a belief in the supernatural among its tenets.

Suck it, Aquinas!

Buddhism would like to have a word, Schwartz. But here's a home version of our game - be sure not to use the censer around an open flame or small children.

Not necessarily. Again, again!

I'm an atheist. I'm on the side of the Catholic children and their parents. And that's all I've got to say about that.

What a bold and nuanced view. I'm going to have to reconsider my previous stance in favor of sexually assaulting children! *retreats to study, lights pipe, contemplates*

I'm not sure it's a word, but "the essence of the Socratic method" probably fits.

To play Devil's Advocate would mean that I'm just firing off for the fuck of it. I'm not.

I'm also not marginalizing anyone's beefs with particular religions (or, more accurately, specific organizations within particular religions). It's foolhardy to extend these beefs to anything beyond those specific organizations/religions, and that is what I take issue with.

When you consider those you disagree with to be "delusional," it's probably going to color your perspective a smidge.

That's nonsensical. If they thought these people weren't delusional, then the rest of their problems with religion would cease to exist.

Moreover, the hypocrisy on display about the proper way to treat people with belief systems that differ from your own has to be apparent to you, right?

I was just using it in a jokey way. I don't think anyone with any kind of religious belief, however moderate, is delusional.

So we shouldn't ever have the chance of discussing it? One of the biggest forces throughout human history and we shouldn't try applying logic because it's "vague by design"? Am I an asshole that I find this wrong and frustrating? Were the aforementioned scholars assholes too? I'll be an asshole then.

"Vague by design" concepts with characteristics so pliable as to be non-existent, fighting tooth and nail to remain relevant despite their constant centuries old retreat should have zero say in determining the lives of billions. Neither should sophistry.

That's absolutely not true, as I've said I don't think they're delusional but I still have problems with what some people do in the name of their religion.

Karma, reincarnation, ascension to higher states of being - do you not consider these tenets of Buddhist thought, or not supernatural?

I know Buddhism has a ton of permutations and they are, in aggregate, less literal-minded about the mythology surrounding Siddhartha than Christians are about Jesus or Muslims with Mohammad. And I'm sure we're heading toward some really specific mode of thought that doesn't take any of the stuff about nirvana and bodhisattvas literally, but as purely metaphoric ideals. Which, good for you, but once you get to that point I know longer consider it a religion. Just like someone who doesn't literally believe in God or Heaven or Hell, but thinks the Bible is mostly a swell book and more or less sticks to (at least the 8 or so that make sense) the Ten Commandments in his day-to-day doesn't really qualify as Christian. What you have then is a philosophy, albeit one heavily influenced by religious thought.

Is this definition full of nuance and sophistication so as to do justice to the length and breadth of every branch of theistic thought throughout the whole of human history? Nope. But for the purposes of a discussion like this, it's perfectly functional.

How about "A religion is a system of beliefs that attempts to explain and influence one's life for the purpose of some kind of betterment, either externally, internally, or both."

Go for it. Schwartz tried, but his definition didn't account for all possibilities.

You'll have to be more specific. Are you saying that religion shouldn't determine with whom we go to war or how our laws are created with respect to homosexuals? Sure. Are you saying that religion shouldn't be a positive influence when it comes to civil rights movements, morally just political uprisings, and charitable initiatives? Hm. I'm gonna have to disagree there.

Hardly a problem with religion though, right?

If your goal is to dismiss it because it's preoccupied with the supernatural or "delusional," then, yes - it's quite functional.

That would probably apply to Confucianism, as well, and, arguably, Greek Rationalism. Are those religions? Probably not by most people's estimations.

Religion is an attempt to define the larger scale of existence and one's place in it, if they have one.

What's "the larger scale of existence"? Who's "they"?

Again, I think you could probably claim that rationalism does this, as well, by different means.

How can any definition of religion not include the supernatural? Could I have an example of a religion completely devoid of supernatural elements?

Sure. Scientology. At least, Scientologists don't consider it supernatural, just science that isn't proven yet. Whatever that means.