Religion and politics.

Remove all ads!

Thanks Khemsa for a more educated clarification. We really have to be careful about what is said about the different religions. Most likely we know just snippets of these religions. Understanding a religion that is not the most prevalent in your country or community is difficult. Most people have heard of the concept of the infalliability of the pope, for example. But it's only in certain occasions, not always. If you are not Catholic, you may misunderstand. I know this because I come from a country that is about 85% Roman Catholic and many, including myself, still get confused about the Church's teachings. It is difficult to discuss Christian teachings because they differ from church to church. We cannot lump them together. I have seen posts here citing teachings from different churchs to make an observation about Christianity in general. I hope in the future that we can be more specific when we refer to certain churches.

Who are you referring to? I wouldn't presume that everyone here has a comfortable life. Surely better than most but not comfortable. My parents don't support me, I pay for all my bills, I sometimes work 18 hour days and I support my 4 year old son, a son who with my free will I have chosen to love.

Where? Think it through. What do you struggle with everyday? What do most people struggle with everyday? Work? Money? Hunger? Raising kids? World peace?

Now, imagine, that the word is perfect except for free will. What is there to do? You have everything we, in this reality, now want. What is there to dream for if you already have everything? Don't tell me it's just suffering in particular you are referring to. Hardship and suffering is tied to everything worthwhile whether it's being valedictorian, the next Jordan, climbing Mt. Everest or just being the best person you can be.


Often we endure suffering not because of free will but because of what we decide to do with it. If we all followed what deep inside we know is good, there would be less suffering in this world and probably less time to log into SP to discuss these ideas.

Without free will, we would be that the thing connected to the screen you are looking at now, a machine. That is not BS.

[ May 26, 2005, 11:53: Message edited by: Charlie ]

 

None of these passages condemn celibacy. They do properly point out the importance of marriage and its holy character. But to hold that that marriage without divorce is a great good is not to denegrate celibacy. May I offer you the following more relevant passages that deal with celibacy straight on, rather than the passages you try to use to denegrate celibacy indirectly.

Matthew xix, 12: (This is Our Lord talking)

Very interesting that you cite I Corinthians vii, 2 but fail to carry on with the remainder of the Chapter.

I Corinthians vii, 7-9:

I Corinthians vii, 32-40:

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

As the above amply demonstrates, the Christian religion teaches that marriage is good, but celibacy, if the person can do it, is better. However, one who cannot maintain celibacy is better off marrying.

By the way, no educated person in the Middle Ages, especially the clergy, believed in a Flat Earth. That is an anti-Christian myth and it is sad to see a Christian fall for it. It was certainly never taught by the Church. Geocentrism was believed by many, but it was never Church doctrine.

The Church does not tie its doctrine to scientific evidence, but to philosophical and theological truth. That is why the Church incorporates neither Creationism nor Evolution in its doctrine.

[ May 26, 2005, 13:49: Message edited by: Khemsa ]

 

You may disagree with my stance, Khemsa, but please at least be fair and don't try to insinuate things I have neither said nor implied. (That was just for my ego, just you ignore it )

I said, in response to Charlie, that the point of dogma is to have a foundation that is not to be discussed. You interfered and said that there is of course a debate inside the church. We were in agreement here, although I pointed out that this debate does not touch any vital point. And now you come and tell us that the very point of a dogma is that it is not to be discussed?! Are you trying to create your own argument here because you feel save to trod on this ground - even if you're preaching to the choir?

The free will thing has more substance. You came up with the term "override the free will" which I adapted becauce a) I'm not a native speaker and b) I didn't have the time to check if this word displayed 100% of what I meant. I used the word - and you could have noticed if you weren't bent on using semantics over contents for your own ends - in the sense of "ignore, pass over", an inherently singular action that refers to this one special point in time. The free will stays intact, the tension, as you call it, remains there. The one who has understanding and love is in the stronger position, hence it would be god's task - if he was loving and understanding - to bear this strain and tension even if he'd prefer to live his godly life unaffected by bad feelings.

You draw (out of thin air if you asked me) the conclusion that this would be the same as to eradicate the free will. Which I find understandable from your point of view - but you may forgive me if I still see no logic nor any good in it.

The same goes to Gnarfflinger. Your argument is even more pitiful. Why should an omnipotent being not be able and willing to break his own law? Is he subject to this law? How then can he be the highest being? But if the law originated from him, why can't or wouldn't he break it? For god there is no good or bad, it is just through him (mark you, this is not my personal view), it is just a benchmark for him to judge the actions of his creations against. He can alter the rules any time he likes, be sure of it. But as long as he refuses to alter the rules on the grounds of a concept like free will that he values even higher than any living being I refuse to think of this god as good. I won't repeat this anymore, I bet you're even more tired of reading it than I am of writing it. Get over it; like I said before: the root of religion is emotion. You will never be convinced by what any stranger says on the internet.

Huh, I haven't finished yet. Religious people did bad things, atheists did bad things. Your conclusion? We're all the same underneath. But, lucky chaps that catholics are, they have Mother Teresa on their side. And the atheists have only Stalin and Hitler. Lucky you!

The fallacy in this is that no one is arguing that atheism is a better concept in the guidance of people than religion. Because, by and large, atheism is no concept that tells you what to do with your life. It tells you what is wrong with the idea of religion and god. Let me illustrate this.

A Christian says "Homosexuality is a bad thing, because God tells us so."
A non-religious person can state his personal likes or dislikes of homosexuality on whatever grounds he deems valuable. The only thing common for all atheists would be to say "Homosexuality may or may not be a bad thing; if it, however, was a bad thing, this certainly would have nothing to do with god. If there is no other justification than god for the badness of homosexuality, then this justification is void."

If you don't recognize this difference, it is of no use to carry on this debate anymore. Best to clarify this before we delve deeper into the subject, eh?

In this light, you simply can't state that the atheism did cause more horrors and deaths than religion, it would be accurate to say that communism and nazism did this. Those ideologies replaced the dogmas of religion with other dogmas of their own likings. You could extend this to the statement "Any concept/idea/ideology that has to rely on dogmas is causing great harm to humanity". To this I would agree.

@Chandos: Dante is all right, peace. When I say "Chandos' view" this translates as "Chandos' citation of Dante's view". It is a shortcut. We do this at times, you know.

Ah, I forgot about paradise. Charlie, Gnarfflinger, you do not define light by its absence, nor do you have to define sound by silence. Love is a positive feeling that stands for itself. Where is your definition of love that has to resort to defining hate which has to resort to defining love which has to... you get the idea. It is a bald assertion that you couldn't have good without bad. There's no reason, no proof for it. Face it. And, hey what, isn't the absence of pain, suffering and hate what paradise is all about? C'mon do you expect anyone to sign up for Christianity if the best you have to offer (according to your definition) is an eternity of boredom? Ts, you people...

Gnarfflinger, it is done like this: press ":", press "b", press "s", press ":", put it all together, praise the lord and sing , baby!

[ May 26, 2005, 16:23: Message edited by: Darkthrone ]

 

Ahh, sorry. But that was a very minor point. And I'm glad that Dante is acceptable here. But I'll let you guys return to your "Bible Wars" in peace.

 

Darkthrone,
Why the sudden hostility? I was very pleased with our discussion up to this point because we both kept things calm and respectful. I do not intend to enter into a quarrel about this, and will drop the whole matter rather than become hostile.

By the way, I am surprised to learn that you are not a native speaker, your English is excellent -- would that more native speakers were as adept.

I apologize about any confusion over my use of the word "override," it does not carry the appropraite connotation and I should have chosen a better word; "suppress" perhaps? Your interpretation was quite understandable. I apologize if my attempt to explain what I meant by my use of the term came across to you as hostile or unfriendly.

I am trying to have a rational discussion with you and not trying to score rhetorical points, so I am not trying to play semantic games (which I am most capable of doing seeing as I am a lawyer IRL ). I am trying, however, to establish definitions so that we both understand how we are using certain words. If we are not working from the same or similar definitions we will simply talk past each other and no meaningful content will be exchanged.

Let me try again on the point of contention in the question of free will. I claim that if God suppressed (is this better than "overrides"?) a person's free will my making them go to heaven, then he would destroy the person's free will. You do not agree and find it illogical. Is that a fair summation? If so, let me offer the following argument:

In any given circumstance there are at least two alternatives a person can choose between. For the sake of the argument, let us call them A and not-A. Now, if a person has free will he can choose either A or not-A. [An animal, lacking free will will do either A or not-A based upon its instincts, it has no choice in the matter.] While there may be many reasons for a person to choose A or not-A, the possession of free will means that the person is able to choose either option, even though there may be heavy penalties attached to one option. Thus, in your example of the child and the lollipop, the child can still choose to desire the lollipop even though sticking to that choice will result in bad consequences - punishment for disobedience. All one person can do to another is prevent him from carrying out or obtaining his choice. We cannot make a person choose A or not-A, the best we can do is make one choice so appealling, or make the other so abhorent, that the person will make the choice we desire.

Are we still in agreement at this point? If so, then I will move to the next step in my argument.

Now, are we in agreement that God has the power to supress a person's free will and force them to make a choice? As I understand your argument, even if a person chooses to go to hell, God should supress that person's choice and make them choose heaven. Am I correct?

As agreed upon above, to have free will means the ability to choose A or not-A. If a creature is human, he has free will, and if he has free will he can choose either A or not-A. If God supressed the free will of a person by making them choose A, then that person would no longer have the ability to choose not-A. If not-A is not an available choice, then there is no ability to choose, hence there is no free will. Therefore, if God were to make a person choose heaven, then God would have destroyed that person's free will.

Philosophically, this is called Determinism and has been exemplified by psychologists such as Skinner. Among Christian sects it has been best exemplified by Calvinism; which holds that a person's salvation or damnation has been determined from all eternity and no one can do anything to change that fate. All determinists hold that what we conceive of as free will is really an illusion as all our actions are determined by forces beyond our control (instinct for Skinner and divine providence for Calvin).

Let me put it another way. Having free will is what makes us human beings, it is the defining characteristic of humanness. If a creature has free will it is human, if it lacks free will it is not human. Were it possible to destroy a person's free will, that being would cease being human. It is not possible to separate a human from his free will, either both are present or neither are. If God were to take away a person's ability to choose hell, then God would destroy that being's humanity. So to talk about God making people choose heaven is to talk about God making people become non-human.

Finally, on this topic, there remains the observation that a person who chooses hell would be unable to remain in heaven regardless of God's attempts to keep him there. For someone who has chosen hell, the pain of God's presence is far worse than any of the torments of hell. For that person, heaven would be even worse than hell; going to hell would be merciful, as strange as that sounds.

While addressed to Gnarfflinger, I would like to add some insight to the question of God's capabilites. We speak of God's omnipotence, which is true, but God cannot do anything which is contradictory to his nature. Thus, since God is the only truly self-existent being, God cannot will himself to not exist.

I am confused and need your clarification. The religious person understands what is moral or immoral on the basis of his religions dogmas. Certain atheists, such as Communists, determine morality from their dogmas. It seems to me that you want to carve out another group of non-believers that are not driven by dogmas. Am I understanding you properly? If so, on what basis does such a person determine how to act? Without exterior points of reference, how is morality determined?

Your discourse on homosexuality was interesting, but I have one problem with your premise. For Catholics at any rate, there is hardly any moral rule that is defendable only because it is the command of God, there is always a natural justification that supports the command. On the most basic level, the Third Commandment (Fourth for you Protestants) commands man to honor the Sabath. Clearly a command from God with an explicit religious justification. However, as was learned over time, for maximum human well being, physically and mentally, a day of rest from labor is a necessary thing. Thus, there is a purely natural reason to have a mandatory day of rest. Or take abortion (and I do not want to start a debate over this topic). Clearly, Christians are forbidden by God from participating in abortions. However, there are purely natural arguments against abortion and there are non-believers who oppose abortion for purely natural reasons, e.g. the American columnist for the "Village Voice" newspaper Nat Hentoff. Even if one disagrees with the natural arguments against abortion, it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that the only reasons for opposing abortion are religious.

For some Christians, it is enough that God commands certain moral actions. However, for those with the interest to delve deeper, there are always natural reasons to support every moral command. And this is not surprising, to me at least. If one accepts that God created man, including his nature and his needs, then it should come as no surprise that the moral commands God gives to man would be in accord with the nature that He created.


With regard to your response to Chandros, you are incorrect. Many things are defined by the absense of their opposite. In science, there is no such thing as "cold." Coldness is merely defined as the absense of heat. The only way to create coldness is by removing heat. There is no positive quality called "darkness." Darkness is simply what one has when there is an absence of light. That is its definition. One cannot create darkness, one can only remove light.

Similarly, in Catholic theology, there is not a positive quality called "evil." Evil is defined as the absense of a good which should be present. So, technically speaking, a cruel person is actually a person who lacks the gentleness and compassion that they ought to have.

I do, however, agree with you that certain things can exist without their opposite. Before the fall of the angels, there was no evil, there was only God's goodness.

 

I've been following this topic closely, but I have not posted much. Unfortuntately, I have to post now, because I think there are some point of confusion, on my part at the very least.

First of all, I am Catholic by birth, but non-practicing at this point. One thing that surprised me was the synopsis of Calvinism. As I understand it, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, that Calvinism is one of several Protestant sects. As such, Calvinists are still Christian. As Calvinists believe that your fate is pre-determined, and that there really is no free will, this seems to go against a point of Christian dogma - i.e., that people have free will. To extend that supposition further, if one were to believe in pre-determinism over free will, then one would not be Christian. However, as Calvinists are Christian, this supposition cannot be true. One must then conclude that free will is not part of Christian dogma and therefore can be debated.

Now, I am fully aware that there are man-made rules within every religion that put additional restrictions beyond the basics of every religion. Catholics, Mormans, and Protestants are all Christians. However, Catholicism prevents marriage within the clergy, whereas in many Protestant sects, this is permitted. In fact, in some of the more radical elements of the Morman religion, polygamy is still allowed and practiced (although my understanding is that polygamy is not endorsed officially by the heads of the Morman religion - that the groups that still practice this are frowned upon.) Catholics also differ from most Protestants in their reverence for the Virgin Mary. In base terms, about the only comprehensive item in Christian dogma seems to be the divinity of Jesus Christ. I guess my question then becomes is the term free will something that is exclusive to some parts of Christianity - for example part of "Catholic dogma" if you will - or is it an over-riding piece of Christianity in general? If the latter, then how do Calvinists get away with denying such?

The other point I would like to address is morality as it pertains to atheists versus religious people. Khemsa, one point I think that fails in your comparison is that in practice, there are many Communisits both now and in Stalin's time who were not atheists. At its base form I will agree that Communism and Atheism should coincide, but in practice this has never happened. In the former Soviet Union for example (but excluding the southern Muslim republics), Russian Orthodox was actively practiced by the vast majority of the people. To go further, many leaders within the Communist party were practicing Russian Orthodox. In the southern republics, Islam was the predominant religion. This is why I have a problem when you say that all Communists must determine morality from their (Communist) dogma because they are all atheists. Like I said, in following a strict Marxist policy, this would be true (i.e., absence of a religion), but in practice we've never seen a Communist state devoid of some religion. China is probably the closest we get, but considering Stalin was specifically mentioned, there's no way to fit such a definition around the former Soviet Union.

 

Aldeth,

It does get very confusing, doesn't it?

Let me preface by saying that I am a very, very traditional Roman Catholic and what I write reflects what the Catholic Church had always taught prior to Vatican II. Thus, keep in mind that everything I write is stuff you would have heard from a Catholic in the 1950s, not from a Catholic in 2005.

I have a couple of answers to your question. The first is very technical and difficult to understand. Technically, the Catholic Church considers itself the only Christian Church. The Orthodox are schismatic (they do not acknowledge the leadership of the Pope, but recognize him as the first among equals), but not heretical (they have no errors in dogma), and thus can still be called Christians. Protestants are schismatic (they do not recognize that the Pope has any authority whatsoever) and heretical (they do have errors in dogma), do not participate in the apostolic succession (i.e. they have no valid bishops) and are thus not even churches, properly speaking. This conclusion was restated recently by then Cardinal Ratzinger in the document Dominus Iesus. Thus, technically speaking, Christian includes Catholics and Orthodox, but not Protestants.

However, for simplicity, we talk about Catholic Christians, Orthodox Christians and Protestant Christians. The problem with this approach is exactly what you point out: if all these groups are Christians, what can it mean to be a Christian?

The Church uses the term heretic to describe those people who claim to worship Jesus Christ but who have errors in dogma. Thus, a Jew or a Muslim would never be called a heretic. There have been so many heresies throughout history that it would make your head spin. Just a couple: Arianism (Christ is not God, but a created creature), Monophysitism (Christ has one nature (divine), not two), Gnosticism (Satan is of equivalent power to God and all material items are intrinsically evil), Hussism (ownership of property is forbidden, as is marriage). And these aren't even any of the Protestant religions! For just about every doctrine of the Catholic Church there has been some heresy which denies it.

It is thus impossible to to talk about the dogma of generic Christianity, since every different sect rejects some dogma the others accept. And, interestingly enough, not all "Christians" even agree on the divinity of Jesus Christ.

If I have confused you or others by my mixing of the words "Christian" and "Catholic," then I apologize and will try harder in the future to be more specific.

Free will is a doctrine of the Catholic Church. I know the Orthodox accept it and the Calvinists do not. I believe Martin Luther did, but I am not clear that Lutherans do. I imagine that some evangelical sects haven't even thought about the question at all. But it is like this with everything in the Faith. There is nothing on which all Christians agree, so there is no such thing as a generic "Christian" dogma.

Communism is atheistic. I do realize that not all Communists were atheists. Catholicism is pro-life, but simply reading about Benedict XVI's elevation will reveal that not all Catholics are pro-life. A pro-abortion Catholic might be Catholic, but they are not reaching their position in accord with Catholic thinking. Likewise, a Communist might reach positions based upon religious morality, however he does so in opposition to the Communist creed.

To put it more succinctly, a devout Communist is an atheist and a devout Catholic is pro-life. However people are too complex to be so simply pegged.

I agree that no Communist state has succeded in eradicating religion, since religion is intrinsic to man's nature. Communism never succeded in eliminating it, try though they did -- and many religious people in the USSR ended up in the gulags.

 

Before I get too far into tonight's rant, I wish to thank you for that piece of information.

But if Marriage is sacred, then why ought it be shunned? I'm Mormon, and This is one of the key sticking points between out faiths. We believe that Marriage is a way to bring Joy, and to deny this, you cheat yourself out of the joy of a wife, children and your posterity. The Reference to Eunuchs simply excuses them from the divine responsibility to father children. The Reference from Paul is to encourage those who aren't yet married, or are widowed to abstain from immoral behaviour, not an advocation of Celebacy. I think Paul was instead referring to Chastity--the practice of refraining from sexual relations when you aren't outside of legal and lawful marriage. He later testifies of the blessings of remaining pure until the time of marriage.

I'm sorry I didn't have all my facts straight on this one. I remember that Gallileo was executed as a heretic for teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun. These accusations are rife about the Catholic church, and if there are any further erronious statements about Catholicism dierctly, regardless of the speaker, I ask that these be corrected immediately for the sake of this discussion.

Because a Law only has power if it is obeyed/enforced. Just as you wouldn't expect a mother to grab a 34 year old son by the arm, drag him kicking and screaming to bed, put on his pyjamas and expect him to stay there all night, The Lord expects us (over the age ov accountability) to make our own decisions, and he is bound by his own law to honour our decisions. He will not drag us kicking and screaming to Heaven. If he violates that law, then the law is meaningless.

What ever happenned to the old saying that if you love something, set it free. If it returns, it is yours. If it doesn't, then it isn't yours. If we do not do what was asked of us in order to retrun to Heaven, then we cease to be God's people.

God's rules are good. If free will is abused, then the person with the free will is doing evil, and potentially harming innocents. Just as a parent will fiercely defend their children, God will defend his people to the best of his ability. If Salvation was extended to all regardless of what they believed or did, then the righteous would arrive to see the immoral and unrepentant there too and wonder why they abstained from premarital sex, booze, drugs...

God's laws are an Iron clad promise. If we do as He commands, then the promised blessings are ours. If we do not obey, then he is not obligated to do anything further for us. Claiming that unrepentant sinners deserve the same blessings as we do means that you would assume that Criminals deserve all the same rights that law abiding citizens enjoy, and therefore Incarceration is morally wrong. This is clearly

So all Aetheism is there for is to tell us Christians that all that we balieve is ? And you think my arguement is pathetic...

If I remember my history right, Hittler claimed to be a Christian, and had the Jews exterminated because he thought it was "God's Will". I contend that true Christians not only profess to believe, but actually act like it.

You could, but I'd have to say . This only applies to where the Dogma demands harm to anyone (like kill those of a particular group) or to spread hatred. If preached incorrectly, Chirstianity can be the worst offender (Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Salem Witch Hunts). That's where I disagree with a popular translation of the one commandment comes in. The Commandment is: Thou Shalt not take the name of the Lord in Vain. Most interpret that as a prohibition of swearing. It also includes not claiming that God is on your side in a petty or vain or ambitious act when he may even disapprove. A Nation that launches an invasion to conquer another land, claiming it is God's will is doing precisely that, and giving Darkthorne more ammunition...

Darkness is an abscence of light, but if there was no darkness, how can you understande light? Silence is an absence of sound, but without silence as a backdrop, sound is harder to comprehend. Evil is an opposite of Good, but How can you understand Good without seeing Evil in it's horror? Does that make the idea clearer?

We will have our memories of strife, pain, suffering, Guilt and hatred, and that will suffice to help us remember the joy of being out of those conditions. There is also the joy of being reunited with your Loved ones (family, friends). Since we have these memories, we can better appreciate the joys of the new condition. It's hard to explain really...

Those persons were actually Excommunicated from the church. They are not true Mormons. They only claim to be such in an attempt to have multiple wives. Calling them Mormons is like Calling George W a pacifist...

 

Just for the sake of clarity: Do you mean pro-choice? Or pro-abortion? There is a difference.

 

@Gnarfflinger

We can agree to disagree about the interpretation of the Scriptural passages. However, I do want to say that Marriage can be a sacred thing while some people choose a life that is more sacred still. It is like the Rich Young Man that comes to Our Lord and asks how he can have eternal life. Our Lord tells him that he must keep the Commandments. The Rich Young Man says that he has always done so, but he seeks perfection. To obtain that, Our Lord says, the young man must sell all he has, give it to the poor, and follow Christ. Here Our Lord points out two options, both very good, but one is better. By following the Commandments one can obtain heaven, which is a very good thing indeed. However, for those who seek even more Our Lord offers a way. By offering perfection to those who abandon everything for Him, does that mean that eternal life is somehow denegrated? I think not.

@Chandos

The Church teaches that human life begins upon conception. From that moment, to abort that child is murder. To accept that and still maintain a "pro-choice" position is to say that "I would never personally burn someone's skin off them, chop them into little pieces and vacuum them into the garbage, but I have no right to impose that view upon others." If someone accepts that the unborn are human beings and still takes a "pro-choice" stand, then to be logically consistent they should advocate the repeal of all criminal laws, including murder, rape, robbery, etc. After all, if one will not impose one's view that abortion is murder, and that murder is bad, on other people, then why should one impose one's views that rape and robbery are bad on other people who disagree?

Now, if a person denies the status of "person" to the unborn, they are not faced with this conundrum; though that position raises a number of concerns in itself. However, a Catholic cannot licitly and morally take that position. Therefore, A Catholic cannot be "pro-choice" without being seriously in error. Depending upon just what they do to support their "pro-choice" views, they may even be automatically excommunicated.

 

Again, many things have been said that touch different issues on different levels. It is not easy to maintain a high level view about the debate without arbitrarily skipping some arguments that may be vital to the other side.

I will do so nonetheless.

Science first, since it is my home turf: you make a correct observation but then deduce an incorrect statement from this. Science has no definition for “cold” and “warm”, right on. Colloquially we talk about cold and warm climate or weather or, in general, cold and warm objects. We do this without having a proper definition, since there isn’t one. Correctly, we define a magnitude called temperature and then assign low or high values to it. Our experience tells us that low temperature coincides with what we think of as cold and high temperatures with what we call warmth. The exact definition used, however, is that of the temperature, a positively defined magnitude (i.e. none of that x is the absence of y business).

No thing can be properly defined by its opposite. We do this in our everyday life, but since we are trying to be accurate in our musings during this debate, we have to resort to something more sophisticated.

This as a prerequisite for the definition of good as the absence of evil or of the definition of evil as the absence of good. Gnarfflinger and Charlie maintain that good cannot be defined without the knowledge of what is evil and I think this is incorrect, a view that is obviously shared by Khemsa. Khemsa himself is asserting that good is defined in an independent way (by god) and that evil is the consequence of good – in the form of its antipode. To the first part I do agree to a certain extent, the second part forces me to disagree though.

Viewed against the background of the analogy Khemsa brought into the debate, the position of good and evil would be the same as the ones of warm and cold from above. This means that we perceive in our everyday life actions of others that we think of as evil or good; this does not necessarily mean, as we have seen above, that a correct definition of the observed underlying phenomenon could include either of both. There has to be an independent quality that we can call good if present in abundance and that we use to call evil if present only in small amounts. Just as is true for temperature – and this in answer to Khemsa’s question how to define Good or bad without any external point of reference – the need for the definition of such a quality exists solely because we observe the according phenomenon (i.e. good or bad actions) in our reality. This observation has clearly to be distinguished from the question of why those phenomena are observed. This question would not yield any insight apart from learning how someone who asks this question views the world. In conclusion, it is possible to define some quality which leads to our perception of good and evil without having to resort to any external source.

What could this definition be? One idea I came across is the following, given by Betrand Russell in his essay “What I believe” from 1925:

“The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.”

Hence, someone who lives a loving life with knowledge at his side can be called good. A life of knowledge without love would be as bad as a love of love without knowledge. A war is a consequence of knowledge without love, whereas conducting a ritual cleansing in the river Ganges together with millions of other Hindus is an example of love without knowledge; both may result in death on a large scale. No greater being is needed for such a definition, a human being suffices as a point of reference. Of course, this definition relies on the definition of love and knowledge, just like the definition of temperature demands the qualities of energy and entropy to be defined. I think we all have a pretty good understanding of what is meant by knowledge, so the open question, again, is “what is love?” Coming back to our former agreement of defining love as well-wishing directed towards another being, I think it is vital to include the emotion of delight in this definition, for an emotion rooted in benevolence and well-wishing alone could as well be sympathy as love.

If this does not suffice, I will be gladly provide some more details as to why I think that this is as good a definition for love – and hence goodness – as any other. With the added benefit that no god of any colour had to be involved whatsoever.

Our intermediate results so far are

a) nothing can be well defined by its opposite alone,
b) it is possible to define a life worth living (and good and evil in the wake of this definition) without having to resort to the crook of a higher being.

This leaves open the question of the free will. To be honest, I have great difficulties arguing about the free will to any extend. I find it quite an empty notion which is satisfying only two very primitive and very human, if not to say: religious ideas. The first is the idea of the accentuation of humankind as creation’s crowning glory. The other is the necessity of a foundation for sin, punishment and blame.

What is the use of free will? Khemsa says that it is there to separate humans from animals. Firstly, this is of grave disadvantage when dealing with the mentally retarded, foeti or Terri Schiavo. I don’t think you can uphold your stance that this is the exclusive defining property for human beings, otherwise abortion and euthanasia would be non-issues for the Catholic Church. Secondly, it is a hollow definition, because it is not about the observation of certain behaviour that only a special group of mammals displays, but it is an attribute that is not open to the perception of others, just like the soul or god himself. You would have defined only that a human being is, indeed, a human being.

For a proper definition of free will you would have to start outside the human being and then match the behaviour of all animals against it. If you were lucky, you would find that the human being is the only animal that shows evidence of free will. Which I doubt, but then again, I’m no biologist nor zoologist. I’m waiting for a definition along the lines of “a behaviour that is neither due to sexual desires nor hunger” that displays your understanding of the free will – and at the same time applies to humans alone. I suspect that I will have to wait until, aha, Kingdom Come.

The Catholics need the free will, that much is clear. It satisfies our longing for being distinguished, it meets our vanity and egoism. Furthermore, it makes the balancing act between love and punishment possible, as we have seen from both Khemsa and Gnarfflinger. Without free will, god would be responsible for any punishment alone, so it would be hard to think of him as all loving. But now the fault is no longer his, he is no longer responsible for our suffering. He can be the loving daddy and punish us all the same, which is a convenient thought for a Catholic.

But is to force someone’s will onto another person the same as destroying the free will of said person. Not at all! We experience all sorts of physical limitations in our lives – but still no Catholic claims that those limitations are god’s way of destroying our free will. For example, if I was feeling especially naughty, I could get it into my head to fly from the nearest skyscraper. Clearly, this would be an act of free will, since I can choose between flying or not-flying according to Khemsa. I jump – and guess what: I die. I could argue that gravity was used by god to destroy my free will, because he forced a result (not-fly) upon me although my free will settled upon a different result. I won’t do this, because it is daft. The idea of hell finds me thinking along the same lines.

Let’s face it, morality is all about changing the desires and hence what you call free will. Religion sets up a system of punishment and reward (iron-clad promise and stuff *chuckle*) to alter the desires of its followers. It is all about suppressing the free will of people. If it wasn’t, you could leave all those sinners alone and be contend in the knowledge that it will all be alright in the end. Can you believe that you are doing god’s work when you neglect the free will of other’s even if god would never dream of doing so himself?

God’s nature and breaking his own rules. This has no real place for me in this discussion, because it would ultimately be centred on the question of god’s existence. A tedious undertaking to say the least. I see where all this leads. The usual claim is that there are beings in this world that do not contain in themselves the reason for their own existence. You, me, everyone without parents and so on. But since objects and beings certainly exist, there must be somewhere a reason for existence external to those objects and beings. This had to be an existing, contingent being that has no reason for its own non-existence. This being is called god. To which I would reply that in order to talk about these claims we could apply the word “necessary” as in necessary being significantly only to propositions. I could only admit a being as necessary whose existence it is self-contradictory to deny. Then – at this point we would be all alone in this debate – we would have to argue about whether we could agree upon Leibniz’s differentiation our propositions into truths of reason and truths of facts, which, of course, we couldn’t. It would all go downhill from there. It has been done countless times before and anyone interested in these matters should look somewhere else for further reading, yes?

The question would still be: how could you know god’s nature if you seem to know so little about him? I mean, you do not know why sin is terrible to him and why we should suffer eternally for our sins, but yet you know that his nature is such that he can’t break his own rules and hence is subject to the laws he himself created. This doesn’t sound sound to me.

The final point is: we are, sadly, discussing the “whys” of religion. Why it is important to have free will. Why we should obey god’s rules. Why Catholicism is sound. This is irritating and doesn’t yield any insight apart from who is faithful and who isn’t. I wanted to discuss the “hows”. How is the impact of religion in this world. A prosaic inventory taking of what uses and aims religion had and whether it had the right means to meet them. I’m running out of time, so here’s just a short appetizer of what’s to come: Hatred! Fear! Plagues of locusts! A bearded woman and Freaks Galore! In a theatre near you, don’t miss it – be there or be square!

Seriously: I feel that religion had had thousands of years without being able to improve the lives of people sufficiently. On the contrary. Religion seems to spread misery wherever it raises its head. I’m sorry to leave you with this, but I’ve got to go. I promise to elaborate further on this.

 

I agree with this. I will go further in saying that equating good and evil to things like light and dark, and warm and cold is a very poor analogy. I say this because good and evil deal in absolutes, whereas light and dark and cold and warm exist in varying degrees. Yes, some things can be "more good" than other things, but there is no way something that is generally considered good could then be considered evil in another instance.

This does not apply to the other comparisons. For example, a temperature of 10 C would be considered "warm" in the middle of winter, whereas it would be considered "cold" in the middle of summer. To extend this analogy further, one would generally consider robbery to be "evil", but there is no circumstance that we would consider it "good". Granted, one could come up with the arguement of "What if someone stole food to feed his family?" Well, that's when we get into varying degrees. We may say that person's actions are justified, and thus it makes the act far less "evil", but this still does not make the action "good".

Finally, Khemsa, if you are willing to acknowledge that not all Communists are Atheists, despite that being part of their doctrine, then we are in agreement with our views on that subject. I was not denying that Communism does not set the absense of religion as a core principle, as it most certainly does. My only arguement was that we have not actually witnessed this practice in action. Yes, many were sent to gulags, but I'm certain that there were tens of thousands of others who continued to practice their religion in Communisitic nations, even if the practice had to be conducted secretly.

 

Then we must agree on this as a matter of principle. This is what happens to innocent children at the moment in Iraq. Because the very things you speak of happen in war. Thus as a matter of principle, we must be opposed to the war in Iraq and the death penalty as well. I am sure then that you would expect that all good Catholics are in opposition to the war with the same vigor and to the death penalty.

 

Darkthrone,

I agree with you about one thing, certainly. Our posts have become so long and involved that it is impossible to respond to every point and argument raised by others.

Therefore, I will happily get back to the topic you seem to want to discuss, the impact of religion on the world.

Let me begin with a note. I by no means intend to denegrate or discredit the achievements of other religions. I have simply concentrated on Christianity, in general, and Catholicism, in particular, because I am most familiar with these religions and their histories.


I have addressed this topic already, though it was likely lost in one of my voluminous posts. I wrote:

Let me proceed from there. Institutional charity and compassion, as we know them, were created in the West by the Catholic Church.

During pagan times, unwanted children were often "exposed;" left outside to die or be eaten by wolves. The Church created orphanages where, combined with the ability to leave unwanted babies at convents, unwanted children could be cared for, thus reducing the killing of babies by exposure. Is this not a good thing?

Monasteries, which formed the heart of Europe after the fall of the western Empire, were centers of education and learning and also provided social services for the poor. What we would call "working poor" were helped out by being able to sharecrop on monastic lands, while the truly destitute were fed by the monastery's kitchen. The "soup kitchen" still exists to this day, and is now a service provided by Protestants as well as Catholics.

What about science? Since you seem to know about science, you must appreciate the contributions that religion and religious people have made to the advance of science. Let us start with abstract science (unlike applied sciences, such as engineering). As many non-Catholic historians have come to recognize, theoretical science only developed in Western Europe, and it developed there because of the influence of the Catholic Church. By adopting Aristotilian Epistimology, the Catholic Church held that the natural world and its works were capable of being understood and appreciated. Since the natural world was made by God for His greater glory, Catholics were encouraged to explore and understand the workings of the Universe so as to better understand the magnificent glory of God. This desire to understand God's creation carried over to the Protestants also.

As you well know, the list of great religious scientists, until relatively recently, coincides exactly with the list of great scientists. Newton, Priestly, and Pasteur are just some of the list of greats who were also very devout Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike.

What about art? There are hardly any great Western art pieces that are neither explicitly religious nor convey meanings motivated by the Christian religion. Christianity has been the subject of most great art. DaVinci, Michelangelo, Bernini, Bach, Palastrina, Shakespeare, Dante and Milton are just some of the greatest of artists whose works were explicitly about the Christian religion or centered around Christian themes. Would you not consider works such as the statue of David, the Sistine Chapel ceiling, the Divine Comedy and Ode to Joy great contributions to humanity?

But what about religion in the world today? Would we agree that teenage pregnancy and drug abuse are bad things? All of the research done to date has demonstrated that the most effective way to keep teenagers away from unwanted pregnancy and illicit drugs is religion. No secular program, initiative or social service is even in the same ballpark in terms of helping teens stay away from self-destructive behavior. Again and again, research by secular scientists show that the best solution to just about every social ill is religion. But not just having any approach to religion, but having a devout faith.

I know not about you, Darkthrone, but everywhere I look here in the West, I see the positive and lasting contributions made by Christianity.

 

The topic is Religion and Politics, and although that is not the topic, (the impact of religion on the world) there are so many places that these topics/subtopics intersect that you both have a wider latitude to discuss religion than usual here. But you both have also crafted a very interesting (and gentlemanly) dialogue here as well. Please carry on, but bear in mind that "politics" is a part of the main focus of the thread.

 

Darkness, Cold, Evil, they are all descriptors used to represent their opposites. Darkness is an abscence of light. Cold is an abscence of heat. Evil is a descriptor for anything opposed to good. I'm using this as a working definition. You deny the existance of God, and rail on the faithful, but you're forgetting that there is also Satan. He opposed God, and was cast out of His presence for rebellion. His objectives are to oppose God, and thus he is called evil because he opposes good.

It's also possible to say 2+2=78. You'd say
Likewise, you've made your statement, and I disagree...

How about Free will is the ability to act on our own desires. I, myself haven't touched whether animals have free will or not, because I think animals do decide to do things according to their own set of desires.

Without free will, we wouldn't do that dumb **** in the first place, so we wouldn't be damned. Imagine, if you will, a dark and stormy night. High winds, driving rains, hail, thunder, lightning, you get the picture. A knock at the door comes. You open the door, but the person just stands there, and makes no effore to come in. Do you force them into the house, thus leaving yourself open to being accused of abductin them? Or do you wait for them to ender voluntarily, only shutting the door when you are sick of waiting? Likewise, God has opened the Kingdome of Heaven and living rightly is the only way to enter the kingdom. Just as you would ask the person at your door who would enter to remove his wet cloak and muddy boots, God ask that we repent and cleanse ourselves of our sins. But if we choose to remain out in the ways of sin, sooner of later the door will be closed. We are condemned not out of hatred, but because we were too stubborn to go to Heaven or unwilling to repent and live rightly.

But one of the covenents we made was to go forth and proclaim out faith unto all. We reserve the right to do as we can to persuede you to to accept our morality, but we cannot force it upon you. We reserve the right to support legal actions to make things we consider sins harder to come by in society to protect our children from temptation until their feet are firmly planted in righteousness. This means that we reserve the right to desire laws to keep drugs illegal, to require a minimum age on sexual relations, alcohol and pornography, gambling, or to refuse our support of same sex marriage or abortion. We cannot prevent people from fornicating or adultery (with same or opposite sex). We can't prevent them from using Alcohol, tobacco, pornography or drugs. We cannot prevent them from Gambling. We can however make sure that the government knows that we don't accept that...

Faith. Just as you place your faith in Science, we put our faith in God. I don't expect that you'll be converted, you only asked our perspective on the issue.

Is it Religion or those who twist it to their own ends? Do you now hold religion accountable for the acts of non-believers? Do you blame the Church, who's doctrine is "Thou shalt not Kill" for a murderer who kills in God's name? Much of the misery in this world is from poor choices somewhere along the line, whether they are unwise or sinful. My back troubles are attributed to my decision to work on a day when i should have called it a day at about 2 o'clock, or busied myself with lighter tasks, rather than what I did that afternoon. Suppose you were violently attacked and robbed? That's the fault of the attacker. During the Spanish Inquisition, some Inquisitioners got out of line, and innocent people were hurt. The blame falls on those who sinned and claimed that they did so in God's name.