Religion and LGBT Issues

[Anywhere Else But Here]

And I should care about what happens once my body dies because...?

Because you will continue to experience things.

Go get your Nobel prize.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And I should care about what happens once my body dies because...?

Because you will continue to experience things.

So what? I'm not dead and I likely won't be dead in 50 years so who cares?

[United Marxist Nations]

I think you can understand why "might makes right" might be an undesirable status quo.

And yet that is all god does.

As I have explained, God is the creator of the Universe. He established everything within it. So too did He establish us. Therefore, we are established to His purposes. We can choose not to, of course, but we would have to face the consequences.

[The New Sea Territory]

Even if we all have the same purpose, how do we not subjectivize it? Our perspectives cloud our understanding of purpose (whether they are products of our environment or whatever). You and I could both look at our shared purpose and draw radically different conclusions.

Turning to Scripture won't help too much on an individual, case-by-case basis...considering those writers themselves were equally blinded by their perspectives (which no Christian would deny; after all, most Christians don't hold these texts to be literally true, and they don't follow all the Jewish laws).



They are still holding onto some conception of moral standards, likely derived from a secular philosophy stunningly similar to Christian ethics (at least, in its big ideas and spooks, not its particular prescriptions).

How could we subjectivize the reason for our existence, which is divinely ordained? It is something innate, it cannot be overturned.

I'm not saying it would be overturned, I'm saying that it would be widely misunderstood.

Think of music. Beethoven's 9th Symphony is about the brotherhood of humanity, friendship, or whatever. This music was used by many groups throghout history. The Nazis used it, a variation was the national anthem of Rhodesia, the Shining Path leader loved it, China allowed it to be played as "progressive bourgeois music", the Soviet Union used it, it is played at official EU stuff, etc. The actual "purpose" of the song is understood in different ways. Radically different ways.

In the same way, Divinely ordained purpose could be subjectivized. If we both share the same purpose, we could go about fulfilling it in extremely different ways. How would divinely inspired purpose avoid this?

The history of Christian schisms and reformations shows how it can't avoid this.

[United Marxist Nations]

Because you will continue to experience things.

Go get your Nobel prize.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by this comment, though I am sure it is mockery.

[Neutraligon]

Societies consensus does matter, as they are supposedly acting on gods commandments. Thus there actions are directly a result of the things god says. Or if you wish, your churches consensus equally does not matter as calling it right or wrong is pointless yammering and absurdity. See here is the thing. There is no reason to believe your churches "yammering" then there is to believe in any church or hell any societies yammering, and your god set it up to be like that.

Also, if societies laws do not matter, then why do so many Christians attempt to enforce their religion with the law? Why do you say in other threads that you would enforce a theocracy? Either societies opinions and laws do not matter or they do, pick one.

Many a group have made the same claim. Clearly those interference have done little to nothing in the long term. You are not making your all powerful god seem and more competent.

The Church consensus comes about through Holy Tradition, passed on by the Apostles, who directly experienced God.

I should believe this why. they are all fallible humans who are just as capable of mistakes as all the others who make similar claims that you dismiss. Like I said your god has set up the perfect system to allow people to continue to sin.

They are not arbitrary.

They most certainly are arbitrary given all the other number of people who make similar claims. Hell I as a jew could claim you blaspheme against the one true god by following a false prophet in the form of Jesus, as shown by the fact that his own prophecies have failed to pass. So tell me, how is following the dictates of humans who only claim to speak for god any less arbitrary then following other humans who make the same claim.

I support using the law to create a new culture that is centered around religious faith, nothing more.

Why do this if societies laws and actions are unimportant?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And yet that is all god does.

As I have explained, God is the creator of the Universe. He established everything within it. So too did He establish us. Therefore, we are established to His purposes. We can choose not to, of course, but we would have to face the consequences.

If we are established to his purposes, then humans have no free will.

You can't both have a deterministic deity and a free-will one.

[Lost Memories]

We don't. But I feel safer taking a gamble on our purpose than living for nothing.

That brings the question, why should anyone follow the purpose in which Christianity espouses? When it is clear that we do not know of our purpose, nor if we have a purpose.

Cause communities need something to unite them, a purpose is better than no purpose in that sense.
Why Christianity's version of purpose over other presented purposes? Self realization I guess. Since the purpose talked about United Marxist Nations isn't something which can be decided, but only something which can be figured out by experience.

A goal is something which ends when it's completed. And it's decided. (Example. you give yourself the goal to get a certain job, you get that job, the goal is over)
A purpose doesn't end so long the subject of it is able. And it isn't decided, but it's part of the subject. (Example. a screwdriver purpose is to screw screws, once it's broken it can no longer serve its purpose)

Tecnically you can have a goal with an impossible requisite of completion, so it wouldn't end in the lifespan of the person who follows it, which would resemble a purpose, but it would still be something different, since a purpose by definition can't be decided by the subject. That endless goal would be more similar to an ideal, or an utopia.

[United Marxist Nations]

How could we subjectivize the reason for our existence, which is divinely ordained? It is something innate, it cannot be overturned.

I'm not saying it would be overturned, I'm saying that it would be widely misunderstood.

Think of music. Beethoven's 9th Symphony is about the brotherhood of humanity, friendship, or whatever. This music was used by many groups throghout history. The Nazis used it, a variation was the national anthem of Rhodesia, the Shining Path leader loved it, China allowed it to be played as "progressive bourgeois music", the Soviet Union used it, it is played at official EU stuff, etc. The actual "purpose" of the song is understood in different ways. Radically different ways.

In the same way, Divinely ordained purpose could be subjectivized. If we both share the same purpose, we could go about fulfilling it in extremely different ways. How would divinely inspired purpose avoid this?

The history of Christian schisms and reformations shows how it can't avoid this.

Ah, I do agree with you here, that there can be many misunderstandings of how to fulfill this purpose. For that, we must rely on the traditions of the Church, in the faith that these traditions are protected by the Holy Spirit from error.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Go get your Nobel prize.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by this comment, though I am sure it is mockery.

Well, judging by the certainty with which you asserted the existence of life after death, you have some compelling and stunning proof that consciousness exist outside the brain. That's worth a Nobel prize or two.

[United Marxist Nations]

As I have explained, God is the creator of the Universe. He established everything within it. So too did He establish us. Therefore, we are established to His purposes. We can choose not to, of course, but we would have to face the consequences.

If we are established to his purposes, then humans have no free will.

You can't both have a deterministic deity and a free-will one.

As I said, for whatever reason, God desires us to come to His love out of our own choice. We are welcome to be disharmonious to him Him, but neither He nor we desire that.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Ah, I do agree with you here, that there can be many misunderstandings of how to fulfill this purpose. For that, we must rely on the traditions of the Church, in the faith that these traditions are protected by the Holy Spirit from error.

Having infallible faith on traditions not being corrupted if naïve.

I mean, if the traditions were not corrupted, you wouldn't have the history of bloodshed the church has. Which, by the way, proves your point about "tradition" wrong, because traditionally, church leaders have not been the most humanitarian leaders throughout history.

[United Marxist Nations]

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by this comment, though I am sure it is mockery.

Well, judging by the certainty with which you asserted the existence of life after death, you have some compelling and stunning proof that consciousness exist outside the brain. That's worth a Nobel prize or two.

Considering I openly ascribe to Mysticism, I don't know why you think I agree with an epistemological system that relies solely on the material.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If we are established to his purposes, then humans have no free will.

You can't both have a deterministic deity and a free-will one.

As I said, for whatever reason, God desires us to come to His love out of our own choice. We are welcome to be disharmonious to him Him, but neither He nor we desire that.

Why don't we?

And if it is just for "whatever reason", then said reason can be subjective, and as such, we can, in fact, have different views as to what God wants.

[Neutraligon]

It truly is incredible how perfectly the Christian god has set up a system that promotes "sinning." If god has a set of dictates he wishes us to follow, why set it down in an ancient book when there are tons of other ancient books, books that can be easily destroyed or lost. Why set it up so that his dictates are spread through fallible humans, just like all the other religions have dictates spread through fallible humans. Why make it so that human desires and the such are so opposed to what he claims is right and good; why make the path narrow?

[United Marxist Nations]

Ah, I do agree with you here, that there can be many misunderstandings of how to fulfill this purpose. For that, we must rely on the traditions of the Church, in the faith that these traditions are protected by the Holy Spirit from error.

Having infallible faith on traditions not being corrupted if naïve.

I mean, if the traditions were not corrupted, you wouldn't have the history of bloodshed the church has. Which, by the way, proves your point about "tradition" wrong, because traditionally, church leaders have not been the most humanitarian leaders throughout history.

Sometimes, the Church must use force to protect itself from the state, heretics, etc.

[The New Sea Territory]

I'm not saying it would be overturned, I'm saying that it would be widely misunderstood.

Think of music. Beethoven's 9th Symphony is about the brotherhood of humanity, friendship, or whatever. This music was used by many groups throghout history. The Nazis used it, a variation was the national anthem of Rhodesia, the Shining Path leader loved it, China allowed it to be played as "progressive bourgeois music", the Soviet Union used it, it is played at official EU stuff, etc. The actual "purpose" of the song is understood in different ways. Radically different ways.

In the same way, Divinely ordained purpose could be subjectivized. If we both share the same purpose, we could go about fulfilling it in extremely different ways. How would divinely inspired purpose avoid this?

The history of Christian schisms and reformations shows how it can't avoid this.

Ah, I do agree with you here, that there can be many misunderstandings of how to fulfill this purpose. For that, we must rely on the traditions of the Church, in the faith that these traditions are protected by the Holy Spirit from error.

Which Church? It seems you presupposed yours was "The" Church, or the right one.

How do you know you haven't already fallen into the trap of some Eastern patriarchs' subjectivizations from a thousand years ago? Or that, before that, the rooting out of heresies like Arianism weren't misunderstandings? Or that, even farther back, Jesus misunderstood Jewish law and the prophets?

Subjectivity destroys your conception of purpose, and leaves us with Camus's "Absurd", which Felrik has been repeating for a while now.

[Neutraligon]

If we are established to his purposes, then humans have no free will.

You can't both have a deterministic deity and a free-will one.

As I said, for whatever reason, God desires us to come to His love out of our own choice. We are welcome to be disharmonious to him Him, but neither He nor we desire that.

Then he is doing a piss poor job of showing that. Also, I am still failing to see the value of free will in this system.

[United Marxist Nations]

It truly is incredible how perfectly the Christian god has set up a system that promotes "sinning." If god has a set of dictates he wishes us to follow, why set it down in an ancient book when there are tons of other ancient books, books that can be easily destroyed or lost. Why set it up so that his dictates are spread through fallible humans, just like all the other religions have dictates spread through fallible humans. Why make it so that human desires and the such are so opposed to what he claims is right and good; why make the path narrow?

As I said earlier, these desires were created through will of humans, not through the process of divine creation. They are an aberration.

[Neutraligon]

Having infallible faith on traditions not being corrupted if naïve.

I mean, if the traditions were not corrupted, you wouldn't have the history of bloodshed the church has. Which, by the way, proves your point about "tradition" wrong, because traditionally, church leaders have not been the most humanitarian leaders throughout history.

Sometimes, the Church must use force to protect itself from the state, heretics, etc.

Why since as you stated societies opinions do not matter, and the church is just another part of society?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Sometimes, the Church must use force to protect itself from the state, heretics, etc.

And here we have the crux of the argument:

If the Church must use force to protect itself from the state, heretics, and others, then the Church is a self-interested institution with self-interested individuals running it. As such, it is quite a human institution and we having faith that traditions are not warped over time is supremely naïve.

[United Marxist Nations]

Ah, I do agree with you here, that there can be many misunderstandings of how to fulfill this purpose. For that, we must rely on the traditions of the Church, in the faith that these traditions are protected by the Holy Spirit from error.

Which Church? It seems you presupposed yours was "The" Church, or the right one.

How do you know you haven't already fallen into the trap of some Eastern patriarchs' subjectivizations from a thousand years ago? Or that, before that, the rooting out of heresies like Arianism weren't misunderstandings? Or that, even farther back, Jesus misunderstood Jewish law and the prophets?

Subjectivity destroys your conception of purpose, and leaves us with Camus's "Absurd", which Felrik has been repeating for a while now.

As I said, that the consensus exists, and that these historical views can be traced back to the earliest Christian communities, shows that this is the traditional way.

[Neutraligon]

It truly is incredible how perfectly the Christian god has set up a system that promotes "sinning." If god has a set of dictates he wishes us to follow, why set it down in an ancient book when there are tons of other ancient books, books that can be easily destroyed or lost. Why set it up so that his dictates are spread through fallible humans, just like all the other religions have dictates spread through fallible humans. Why make it so that human desires and the such are so opposed to what he claims is right and good; why make the path narrow?

As I said earlier, these desires were created through will of humans, not through the process of divine creation. They are an aberration.

Then why does he not remove them? Also, considering that Adam and Eve where curious before they ate the apple, clearly this existed before sin did, thus clearly it is not an aberration.

[Salus Maior]

Sometimes, the Church must use force to protect itself from the state, heretics, etc.

And here we have the crux of the argument:

If the Church must use force to protect itself from the state, heretics, and others, then the Church is a self-interested institution with self-interested individuals running it. As such, it is quite a human institution and we having faith that traditions are not warped over time is supremely naïve.

Like what traditions?

[United Marxist Nations]

Alright, guys, I gotta tag out, all this arguing is giving me a headache. We can all use this time, I think.