The believers get to use the big fancy gate where you can’t see everyone else coming in.
1 Like
It appears that catholicism will soon be the most progressive branch of Christianity
1 Like
Ah, I was just being silly. When in doubt, if japhroaig says something weird, it sounds funny in his head.
3 Likes
2 Likes
But look at it like this, they think they aren’t going to see you again after everybody is dead. And they are right about that,
The Hell they believe in is a Catholic add on to the Bible. Charles Dodgson (the author of the Alice books, writing as Lewis Carroll) was unable to reconcile the idea of a loving God with the idea of Hell. Being a mathematician as well as a Christian, he solved this problem in the simplest possible way: Hell existed, but it was actually empty.
I assume you haven’t met him, or spent enough time with him for that option to be on the table in the first place. Of course, the pope only matters as a guy who has a lot of influence over the largest Christian denomination in the world.
From family and from people who have already become good friends, we accept things that would prevent strangers from ever becoming friends.
I’ve never had the misfortune of having anyone in my family develop that kind of religious extremism (which is very much outside the mainstream in Austria).
Many years ago, I worked in a home for young asylum seekers; during my time there, a Kosovan Muslim with whom I had developed a little bit of a friendship told me I was going to hell for my unbelief. He did so as a sincere warning to a friend, not as a recrimination.
I decided to call him out on it - basically I went through the reasoning that if God is good, then that means he approves of God’s actions, and that means if he thinks that God will send me to Hell that he means I really deserve eternal suffering. And then I asked him to reconsider whether he would really wish that on a friend.
It took him about five seconds to process this thought, which was apparently new to him. Then, he had found a loophole. Only Allah can decide who goes to heaven. My friend, the believer, decided he would rather trust in Allah the All-Merciful to find an excuse to spare me from damnation than to tell me to my face that I deserve it.
I have since repeated that experiment with one Christian (pentecostal, I think, but I’m not sure) from Angola (in the same asylum seekers’ home) and with one Egyptian-born Canadian muslim. Same result.
My sample is still small, so I don’t know how reliably you will get that reaction. It probably wont work over the internet, because people don’t mind wishing each other to hell on the internet.
I think Catholicism is very varied form country to country, even though officially, the same teachings apply. Most of Austrian Catholicism is probably more progressive than everything about American churches that one hears from across the Atlantic, but I guess the progressive churches in America just aren’t shouting loudly enough to be heard on the other side of the Atlantic. I assume the various Northern European protestant state churches are more progressive in most respects.
Can somebody from North America comment on the state of Catholicism locally?
I suspect that there must be a major difference. Societies that had or have a state church or a de-facto state church have necessarily develop a habit of interpreting that state church’s teachings in a progressive way as society in general became more progressive. I would assume that in America, as there was more of a choice between different churches much earlier on, people would have just switched denominations.
3 Likes
Sure. But we’re both talking about the Christian God. There’s only one circumstance under which you can kill him and I don’t think that’s what Wanderfound had in mind.
Hmm, I don’t think it’s contradictory to suggest that the God who sustains life might withdraw it.
But multi-layered might be right.
My standard example for suicidal-but-justified resistance is the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The end result of that was very close to 100% fatal for the Jews of Warsaw, but it’s still widely considered to have been a preferable choice than submitting to the camps.
Why? Well, you’ve already raised one factor: you might be mistaken about the “futile” part. Eowyn and Merry vs the Witch-King of Angmar, for a less Godwinish example; heroic fiction is full of characters who choose to fight apparently hopeless battles.
Secondly, there is setting an example; the Uprising didn’t save the Jews of the Ghetto, but it did inspire others across the world, and continues to do so.
Thirdly (and least rationally), there is also an “internal inspiration” factor; i.e. dying with a sense of dignity and self respect (“better to die on your feet than live on your knees”).
As for the Kapo thing; not making a suicidal attack on an evil deity is not Kapo-like. Choosing to worship a known evil deity is.
Nothing wrong with waiting a bit to clarify exactly what you’re dealing with, though.
3 Likes
That was my argument as a child: if the Christian god was so wonderful – and this universe really is phenomenal so any god that created it would be by definition both wonderful and wise – then why would anyone go to hell? A god that could create the universe wouldn’t be that petty and cruel.
2 Likes
The parsimonious answer, though, is that this God was created by people, and reflects the pettiness and cruelty of the people who created it.
Well, yeah. But when countering long-held beliefs, baby steps are in order!
2 Likes
I think we’re safe in assuming that your portrayal of liberal Austrian Catholicism is not representative of the bulk of Catholics. The demographic centre of Catholicism is increasingly in Africa and South America rather than Europe.
While the South American church may tend leftwards on economic issues relative to the North American evangelical Protestants, it isn’t notably more tolerant on social issues. And when it comes to issues such as LGBT rights, the African church is openly murderous.
It’s also noteworthy that many of the more liberal parts of Catholic theology (acceptance of evolution, rejection of biblical literalism etc) are relatively modern. The bulk of the clergy were thoroughly in favour of biblical literalism back in Galileo’s day.
4 Likes
The original hypothetical involved me running into an entity that claimed to be the one portrayed in Jewish and Christian scripture, i.e. “yes, that was me, I behaved as portrayed in those stories”. Taking that entity at its word regarding behaviour does not necessarily imply taking it at its word regarding power.
The thing is, the supposed absolute certainty of God’s invulnerability only applies if you (a) have absolute confidence in your own opinion/knowledge/understanding, which no sensible human does, and (b) belief in the absolute truth of Christian mythology, which I obviously don’t.
Without (a), you might be mistaken in your belief of God’s invulnerability, so you may as well take a swing just in case it works (given that you are faced with an opportunity to stop a being of almost limitless evil); without (b), the claim of invulnerability is nothing more than an untested boast (so, again, it seems worthwhile to test it).
Oh okay. So you’re talking about a super-entity who claims to have done some of the things described in the Bible. I think most Christians would be happy for you to destroy an entity like that (if you could) – he wouldn’t have the right to do those things and, if he was lying about himself, he wouldn’t be trustworthy.*
Your deeper question of course is whether we could test whether God really is God and not just a (demi) god.
As you say, we can’t know that for sure – in fact the only way anyone could be certain about that would be if he or her was God. By the same token, however, mightn’t these same limitations put the brake on negative judgements about God? Finitude (and often ignorance) seems not to deter atheists from their own judgments about God.
*Well probably not anyway, you haven’t made it clear whether this god is our creator or not.
I can’t immediately think of anything biblical that necessarily precludes this entity having performed all of the actions described in scripture. Even if this hypothetical entity were responsible for creation, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they are invulnerable or required for continued existence.
[quote=“dug, post:156, topic:71225”]As you say, we can’t know that for sure – in fact the only way anyone could be certain about that would be if he or her was God. By the same token, however, mightn’t these same limitations put the brake on negative judgements about God? Finitude (and often ignorance) seems not to deter atheists from their own judgments about God.
[/quote]
Well, yeah. This is a large part of why, back in the real world, I’m an entirely non-violent person despite being continuously outraged at the injustices of the world. I’m all too aware of my own potential for error.
Remember that my original statement was “would be seriously motivated to attempt” rather than “certainly would do so”.
1 Like
Ignorance
Atheists are judging a fictional creature they are being told about, while believers tend to assume that the atheists are talking about the God that the believers believe in. We do not stop to make sure that the thing we are judging is the “real” God before we pronounce our judgement.
So, atheists are just judging characters in stories they’ve been told. And those stories are very much different from each other.
For any amount of ignorance about theology that an atheist might display, there is a believer who is as ignorant, but sincerely believes in what he thinks he knows.
So if Fred Phelps tells us about his God, I’ll judge that God to be evil. And yes, I know that there are better ways to read the Bible than that, but that does not change the fact that that God is evil.
Finitude
God’s Infinity is often used as a reason that mere humans cannot judge Him. I don’t agree.
Let’s assume there are some things that God did that we might disapprove of (deliberately creating a world with an excessive amount of human suffering while having the power to create a better world; the Flood; various crimes and genocides as described in the Old Testament). Of course, it is possible that these acts serve a “higher purpose” that lies outside our finite human understanding.
But should I care? I’m human. We humans have a finite sphere of experience. If an entity makes things worse in this finite sphere, then it is, by definition, evil. Homo mensura. I don’t see why I should accept some supernatural entity’s ethics instead of my own if that supernatural entity’s ethics is bad for humans.
Judgement
I know that most religious people disapprove of the pridefulness of the idea of a mere human “judging” God. It should be the other way around, after all.
I know of two arguments against this; first, every pronouncement of faith, every act of “accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour”, every act of “thanking God” is a judgement about God. Every praise for God becomes meaningless if you don’t accept that humans have the capacity to decide whether it is deserved.
And second, every ethical being has a duty to judge. “I vas just folloving commandments” does not count as an excuse.
2 Likes
Can I gently suggest that this might be because you don’t know the Bible as well as you think you might?
Scripture itself says God is required for continued existence. For example (without even going to the New Testament), creaturely life is described as dependent on God’s presence and Spirit (eg. Ps 104:29-30; Gen 6:3).
I’m not saying this to try to pull a gotcha on you, just to encourage you to pursue the epistemological modesty you obviously believe in.
[quote]Well, yeah. This is a large part of why, back in the real world, I’m an entirely non-violent person despite being continuously outraged at the injustices of the world. I’m all too aware of my own potential for error.
Remember that my original statement was “would be seriously motivated to attempt” rather than “certainly would do so”.[/quote]
Hi Zathras,
There’s an awful lot you’ve raised here. Forgive me if I just touch on a couple of points.
Yes, but it’s a good idea to make sure you’ve understood the stories properly or your assessment of the characters won’t count for much. These days It’s too easy for us all to hang out in echo-chambers and reinforce caricatures about what ideological enemies think. Doesn’t help anyone.
Since you want to tie up theology and morality here, can I point out an interesting parallel between the two.
The first argument you make in this response seems to trade on the standard atheist trope: “there are so many gods, and all their worshipers disbelieve the others, why should I take any of them seriously. I’ll just disbelieve the lot.”
But there are also infinite theories about right and wrong. Some think torture, infanticide and eugenics are right under certain circumstances. Others would happily kill people who kill animals. Some believe that family loyalty trumps all other law etc etc etc. Why should we take any of them seriously? Why not call the whole idea of right and wrong a joke?
The reason why I raise the argument is that you seem to believe that you have a very common-sensical this-worldly way to judge God, but I think your ethical statements are full of metaphysical assumptions.
You care about “what’s good for humans.” Why? Why not just – “what’s good for my people, or me?” Whence this God’s-eye perspective on the world? You say that ethical beings have a duty to judge. Where does this mystical duty reside? What does the word even mean in a world of chance and necessity? Can you show me an empirical test for duty?
1 Like
Oh, I don’t know the Bible well at all. I’ve skimmed the highlights [1], but I’ve never attempted to read it cover to cover. And while I’ve had a long term interest in trying to understand theology from the outside [2], it’s more of a psychological than spiritual interest.
I was thinking of the Biblical stories as divided into “events that are reported to have happened” and “claims that are made about things that aren’t directly portrayed”, hypothetically accepting the former but leaving the latter open to doubt. I admit that this might not have been clear, though, and openly confess that I was not specifically aware of any particular Bible passages addressing the matter. I was hoping that you’d suggest some; I enjoy learning this stuff.
Psalm 104:29-30 (“When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground”) looks more like “God can kill people and alter planets if he wants” than “God is required for existence” to me.
Genesis 6:3 (“Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years.””) just looks like a “humans are mortal” statement.
(translations from English Standard Version, NIV looks fairly similar, King James is flowery and archaic as usual)
[1] I ripped off the Julian May version of the Song of Songs (“you have ravished my heart, my sister, my bride; you have pierced my soul with a single glance”) for my wedding ceremony twenty years ago.
[2] I was a fan of the books of Dr Peter Cameron in my teens (Peter Cameron (minister) - Wikipedia), and I’ve had a fair bit of academic exposure to the parts of church history that interact with the history of science (Albertus Magnus, Copernicus, Galileo, etc).
3 Likes
