Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Thad]

What?  I thought McCain was Catholic.

Reasonable, with an Irish name, but no.  He was raised Episcopalian, though.

[sei]

Anti-religious would be more accurate. There have been atheists who consider religion necessary as the masses can't be trusted by themselves.

This view is called "religious functionalism."

I also dislike the term 'militant atheist' since that's like saying 'militant gays' or something.

Basically: homosexual is to gay activist as atheist is to militant atheist.

Not so much.  Gay activists don't call heterosexuality a dangerous tendency.  Kazz (BREEDING IS MURDER) would be a better example of what you're calling a "gay activist" than any actual gay activists.

Consider a person who thinks homosexuality isn't right despite agreeing with a gay activist on all other fronts. Now this is a victory from a rights-based objective, but that concession legitimizes homophobia and is a (small) threat.

Drop some of the moral connotations, and an atheist faces a similar dilemma with a liberal religious person. Their faith, despite agreeing with the atheist on everything else, legitimizes illogical thought in a small way.

what

Eh- erm... But you're... Religions, by their nature, claim knowledge of the divine.

I mean, I... I'm not sure that's an accurate term.

My religion doesn't purport to have knowledge of the divine. And I'm distrustful of anyone who does. Though that also depends on what you mean by knowledge.

Knowledge is defined in philosophy as true justified belief. It's a belief, and it may or may not be true, as for justified, I guess that depends on what you think justifies a belief.

The center of Episcopal teaching is the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ.[70] The basic teachings of the church, or catechism, includes:

    * Jesus Christ is fully human and fully God. He died and was resurrected from the dead.
    * Jesus provides the way of eternal life for those who believe.
    ...
    * The Old and New Testaments of the Bible were written by people "under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

Do I have the wrong Episcopal Church?

That last line especially deals with revelation, which is the main device through which the divine is said to make itself known.

(I'm not so presumptuous as to tell you what you believe; it just looks like what you said is contradictory)

EDIT: Is this some trick of terminology in which you guys can't really verify the core tenets of the religion, so you say you don't know them to be true, but instead believe (read: have faith in) them to be true?

[Classic]

Catholic dogma says such things for sure. I imagine it's a pretty common tenet (it was paying rent! What! ) amongst most religions that have spawned an elite, intellectual class to safeguard its knowledge and records.
It's been a while (and diluted with the watered-down dogmas of a jillion protestant spin-offs) but I think the argument goes that, while you can't actually be sure, you have a considered faith in the new testament. When you ascribe to that faith, you're making claims about the divine. Even if you take the (well-reasoned) stance that you can't prove that belief.

[sei]

Tenet.

Can you elaborate a bit on "considered faith"?

When you ascribe to [considered] faith, you're making claims about the divine. Even if you take the (well-reasoned) stance that you can't prove that belief.

What kind of claims?  I'm not entirely sure I understand what's being hinted at.

[Kashan]

The center of Episcopal teaching is the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ.[70] The basic teachings of the church, or catechism, includes:

    * Jesus Christ is fully human and fully God. He died and was resurrected from the dead.
    * Jesus provides the way of eternal life for those who believe.
    ...
    * The Old and New Testaments of the Bible were written by people "under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

Do I have the wrong Episcopal Church?

That last line especially deals with revelation, which is the main device through which the divine is said to make itself known.

(I'm not so presumptuous as to tell you what you believe; it just looks like what you said is contradictory)

EDIT: Is this some trick of terminology in which you guys can't really verify the core tenets of the religion, so you say you don't know them to be true, but instead believe (read: have faith in) them to be true?

Double checking my book of common prayer I can say that while that summery of our catechism isn't strictly speaking a lie, it is certainly misleading. It was probably put up by one of the more conservative members of our church that does personally view our doctrine that way. The catechism's actual answers on some of those things such as hell are actually tame enough to make just stating that we believe in it fairly misleading.

The official Episcopal stance is that the Nicene creed and the Apostles' creed are the sum of required belief to be a Christian. It is notable that these two creeds are statements of belief and not fact or knowledge. We do have a catechism, but unlike many churches it is not a statement of official dogma.

Here's a quote from the book of common prayer preceding the catechism.

"It is a commentary on the creeds, but is not meant to be a complete statement of belief and practices; rather, it is a point of departure for the teacher, and it is cast in the traditional question and answer form for ease of reference."

It is the Episcopal stance that one is allowed and encourage to consider and interpret the creeds for themselves.

Sometimes this can lead to people with radically different views worshiping together.


And while many churches might not officially have this practice of personal interpretation, it is never the less very common in any number of denominations. It is a fairly recent occurrence in the history of the church that the Bible was viewed as the word of god, literal, infallible, and complete.

[sei]

I'd never heard of those creeds.  Their existence is pretty interesting stuff.

The purpose of a creed is to act as a yardstick of correct belief.  The creeds of Christianity have been drawn up at times of conflict about doctrine: acceptance or rejection of a creed served to distinguish believers and deniers of a particular doctrine or set of doctrines.
...
The Nicene Creed of 325 explicitly affirms the divinity of Jesus, applying to him the term "God". The 381 version speaks of the Holy Spirit as worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son.

4. A series of questions are then asked, to which the reply is always "I renounce them":

    Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God?
    Do you renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?
    Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you from the love of God?

5. The second half of the query is asked, to which the reply is always "I do":

    Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept him as your Savior?
    Do you put your whole trust in his grace and love?
    Do you promise to follow and obey him as your Lord?
   
6. The Apostle's Creed is then recited, in which is divided into three parts; the celebrant asks whether they believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, to which the Creed is stated in its three divisions in respect to the Three Persons of the Trinity.

Can you explain a bit about what is meant by "Savior" in #5—especially its relationship (if any) with "Jesus provides the way of eternal life for those who believe"?

[Kashan]

I'd never heard of those creeds.  Their existence is pretty interesting stuff.

The purpose of a creed is to act as a yardstick of correct belief.  The creeds of Christianity have been drawn up at times of conflict about doctrine: acceptance or rejection of a creed served to distinguish believers and deniers of a particular doctrine or set of doctrines.
...
The Nicene Creed of 325 explicitly affirms the divinity of Jesus, applying to him the term "God". The 381 version speaks of the Holy Spirit as worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son.

4. A series of questions are then asked, to which the reply is always "I renounce them":

    Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God?
    Do you renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?
    Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you from the love of God?

5. The second half of the query is asked, to which the reply is always "I do":

    Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept him as your Savior?
    Do you put your whole trust in his grace and love?
    Do you promise to follow and obey him as your Lord?
   
6. The Apostle's Creed is then recited, in which is divided into three parts; the celebrant asks whether they believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, to which the Creed is stated in its three divisions in respect to the Three Persons of the Trinity.

Can you explain a bit about what is meant by "Savior" in #5—especially its relationship (if any) with "Jesus provides the way of eternal life for those who believe"?

Well after pouring through the catechism and failing to find the quote used in that wikipedia article, or really anything close I decided to do some google searching. Turns out that phrase only appears in wikipedia articles referring to Anglican churches, and nowhere in the catechism of any Anglican church 

But yeah I'll give you the closest answers I can find in the catechism and then I'll give you my personal take.

Q. What is meant by the Messiah?
A. The Messiah is one sent by God to free us from the power of sin, so that with the help of God we may live in harmony with God, within ourselves, with our neighbors, and with all creation.

Q. What is the significance of Jesus' resurrection?
A. By his resurrection, Jesus overcame death and opened for us the way of eternal life.

Q. What did the Messiah promise in the New Covenant?
A. Christ promised to bring us into the kingdom of God and give life in all its fullness.

Q. What do we mean by everlasting life?
A. By everlasting life, we mean a new existence, in which we are united with all the people of God, in the joy of fully knowing and loving God and each other.

My personal view on accepting Jesus as my savior is two-fold. First the practical. Christianity is personally important to me. The teachings of Christianity provide me with a community and a way to look at the world which is full of hope. Also it introduced memes into the western world that I personally consider responsible for much of the good and progress of the last 2000 years.

Then there's the more faith based view of the savior. The idea that we are not only created in the image of god, but that god was re-created in the image of us has a strong resonance with me. That dying, returning to life, and ascending into heaven the human nature was freed from death and brought up into heaven. I have a kind of compatibleist view on this. I take it as a metaphor, but I'm also open to the possibility of the literal truth of it.

[Cannon]

Which is it? A metaphor or the literal truth? Even if you say it's a metaphor, you aren't stating the more exacting truth as you see it. Please elaborate.

You're also going to have to clarify what you mean by God "re-creating Himself." That sounds like contradictory nonsense without scriptural basis.

[sei]

Jesus was a man
I mean, he was a deity man
Or maybe he was just a deity

But he was still JESUS!
JESUS!

[Bal]

In Catholicism God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all separately definable, but nonetheless part of the same being. It's not really intended to make sense. That's part of the whole faith thing.

[Classic]

:Proclaim: the of :faith:

[Kashan]

Which is it? A metaphor or the literal truth? Even if you say it's a metaphor, you aren't stating the more exacting truth as you see it. Please elaborate.

You're also going to have to clarify what you mean by God "re-creating Himself." That sounds like contradictory nonsense without scriptural basis.

As I said, I take it as a metaphor, but I'm open to the possibility that it's the literal truth. There is no knowing with something like this.

What do you mean by the more exacting truth as I see it? I'm happy to explain the way I see things, but I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.

And by re-created I mean that there was a fundamental change to the nature of god if he completely shared the essence of humanity. That kind of stuff really isn't at the core of my religiosity however.

Edit: So I realized that maybe I'm being dense here. Are you guys trying to ask me in a roundabout way whether I think you're going to hell?

[Kayma]

Jesus was a man
I mean, he was a deity man
Or maybe he was just a deity

But he was still JESUS!
JESUS!

  Jesus has consummate Vs.

[Disposable Ninja]

In Catholicism God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all separately definable, but nonetheless part of the same being. It's not really intended to make sense. That's part of the whole faith thing.

That always made perfect sense to me, actually. But then, I like to come up with fantasy stories about magic and shit, so yeah.

[MadMAxJr]

I don't know.  There's no real way for me to know right now.  I'll investigate the matter when I'm dead.  If there is something all powerful, all knowing, I think it could take five minutes to answer questions at that time, or I will take a number and sit in the lobby where the most recent magazine is from 1985.  Failing that I'll be commenting 'oh god the worms' or be too busy rotting.

If the tenets of a given faith give you meaning to your life and a good set of moral guidelines to live by, that's fine and dandy.  I can respect that.

If you are more concerned with religious entities, religious law, and blind devotion in them, fanatical about every single written word with no room for alternate meaning or context of when it was written, and trying to 'save' me because I am not listening or going to your place of worship, please leave me alone.

All that aside, I still kind of want to see the movie, because Bill tends to have some golden snarky comments.

[Kashan]

I don't know.  There's no real way for me to know right now.  I'll investigate the matter when I'm dead.  If there is something all powerful, all knowing, I think it could take five minutes to answer questions at that time, or I will take a number and sit in the lobby where the most recent magazine is from 1985.  Failing that I'll be commenting 'oh god the worms' or be too busy rotting.

If the tenets of a given faith give you meaning to your life and a good set of moral guidelines to live by, that's fine and dandy.  I can respect that.

If you are more concerned with religious entities, religious law, and blind devotion in them, fanatical about every single written word with no room for alternate meaning or context of when it was written, and trying to 'save' me because I am not listening or going to your place of worship, please leave me alone.

All that aside, I still kind of want to see the movie, because Bill tends to have some golden snarky comments.

MadMaxJr, you're going to hell. 

My church is going to see Religulous on thursday, but I have work. 

[Arc]

My church is going to see Religulous on thursday, but I have work.

Can you report on this after the fact all the same?

I wanna know how many make it past the guy sucking on the nun's tit.

[Kashan]

My church is going to see Religulous on thursday, but I have work.

Can you report on this after the fact all the same?

I wanna know how many make it past the guy sucking on the nun's tit.

With my group it'll be everybody. My priest recently introduced some of the members to cakefarts. 

Edit: The video, he didn't actually fart on a cake.

[Transportation]

I also dislike the term 'militant atheist' since that's like saying 'militant gays' or something.

Basically: homosexual is to gay activist as atheist is to militant atheist.

Not so much.  Gay activists don't call heterosexuality a dangerous tendency.  Kazz (BREEDING IS MURDER) would be a better example of what you're calling a "gay activist" than any actual gay activists.

No no, the relationship was meant to be explained in-

Consider a person who thinks homosexuality isn't right despite agreeing with a gay activist on all other fronts. Now this is a victory from a rights-based objective, but that concession legitimizes homophobia and is a (small) threat.

Drop some of the moral connotations, and an atheist faces a similar dilemma with a liberal religious person. Their faith, despite agreeing with the atheist on everything else, legitimizes illogical thought in a small way.

what

That, which was apparently confusing. Let's try it again. From a 'militant atheist' perspective:

Disliking homosexuality without acting on it is bad because that dislike legitimizes others who feel the same but act on it.

Liking faith without acting negatively towards others is bad because it legitimizes people who like faith and do act negatively.

From a strict perspective faith is always bad as it is defined as 'belief without evidence'. Basing actions on such criteria is always a bad thing.

So, in this analogy repressed homophobia and faith both have inherent negative utility and are not responsible for the person's good behavior anyway. Ergo, that person should try to fix this problem.

From a more pragmatic perspective the more proactive religious are more of a danger to society, but I can see why people might try fix those who still have the same 'problem' but aren't influenced by it as much.

There, that make mores sense?


Preemptive note: Irrational is not the same as pointless or acting without a goal in mind. It's willfully drawing the wrong conclusions from the world.

[sei]

"Disliking homosexuality without acting on it is bad because that dislike legitimizes others who feel the same but act on it."

You seem to implicitly accepting that that "disliking" part leads to condoning the actions of bolder parties with similar viewpoints (perhaps by expressing a similar/sympathetic viewpoint, or not acting to stymie their efforts).  It could be argued that condoning is its own form of acting, and that what you are calling "legitimization" is an action in and of itself.

I'll try to respond further when I get back from class.