1783
Pope says 'backward' US conservatives replaced faith with ideology
(www.euronews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
1783 points (98.2% liked)
News
21676 readers
3006 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Isn't god supposed to be unchanging according to their book?
Atheist here. But I'll put a Christian hat on for a sec.
Humans are fallable. God isn't. Human interpretation of God's will is fallible. Therefore the church must adapt as humans become better at diving God's will.
Hat off.
I don't think that's a contradiction. Now I'm going to stand in my garage for an hour and sing, hoping it'll make me a good car.
I never understood this argument. If God is all powerful how come he leaves his messages to interpretation. Shouldn't we all just be born knowing the exact wording and understanding? Also why does he need people to write his books and teach his lessons when again he supposedly is all powerful and could make it so we were born with this knowledge instead of leaving it to idiots who can't "comprehend God's great plan".
It's a way to select the good ones for his next experiment.
Ever have a dog? You really love the dog and the dog is smart for a dog, but no matter how hard you train them they won't really understand you. You can get them to follow a few rules , but after a certain point you can't really train them much more.
People can't even handle the few very basic messages that were already laid out.
Except if God is truly omnipotent they can dumb it down to a point we can understand it or iunno increase our mental capacities. We aren't omnipotent so of course we can't explain every concept to a dog, but god could.
Ssssh. It's just a way to control Pharaoh's slaves.
Yeah it seems ridiculous now that I've deconverted and can finally look at this critically from the outside. It would be like raising a kid by leaving them a letter. If the god existed surely they would have the bright idea to drop some updated material every few decades and maybe make the occasional clarifying announcement to humanity.
Having a collection of religious texts, physically recorded by human hands, that provide information about the religion is a feature consistent with any religion that has a human-fabricated deity. Coincidentally, it is also a feature of every major religion. 🤔
Oh, but God does and coincidentally God's will always coincides with what the person proclaiming to relay God's will wants to be true .
this was part of what Jesus was supposed to do, actually.
... and Mohammed... and Joseph Smith...
Depending on which items of Abrahamic scripture you consider canon.
Atheist here, putting in a Christian hat. If you were omnipotent and creating a game, would you make it easy or hard?
If I was omnipotent I could make the game specifically challenging in it's own ways for every single individual on a changing whim, while also knowing their full skillset and potential plus what they want out of the game. If they want it casual, competitive, for fun, screwing around, etc. If they want zombies, new IPs, shooters, MMO, what ever. And since I was omnipotent I could weave them in such a way they all work together for every single player. And the players would know the rules of their version because as soon as they're born they know everything they need to know about the rules of their game.
I'd also have a working anti cheat for once and GMs to enforce said rules to a certain extent (small dig at the industry here :P)
EDIT: Do I really have to say that I'm not a Christian before arguing from their point. Didn't you muppets notice the blasphemy I added?
So that humanity can learn:
Then we'd be mindless puppets without free will. The guy, however, doesn't want to be admired by automatons but people who could decide otherwise.
It's the ole "if you slip your crush a love potion, is it actually love" problem and, indeed, no, it's rape.
What if you tell your crush they need to love you or you will throw them in a lake of fire to suffer for eternity while you enjoy sniffing the smoke?
That seems abusive. And maybe somewhat unhinged.
Actually Hell is only a lake of fire on pop culture. In theology it is a state of depression persisting throughout the afterlife brought on by seperation from the divine.
I really don't want to play Christian apologetics here, yes the whole thing is unhinged, and no I'm not even a Christian, this is all just comparative mysticism for me and I like The Sandman much better.
But specifically as to the hell thing the doctrine of denominations differ, e.g. Lutherans think that faith is not required before you have proof, that is, until you're standing at the crossroads of afterlife, heaven on one side and hell on the other. Capability to tell the both apart is something you probably should have taken some time to learn on earth, though.
It is possible to make Christianity make sense if, and only if, you interpret things just right. And it will put you at loggerheads with practically all Christians. Been there, done that, either they fall silent or they unleash the full force of their neuroses to ignore you, little in between.
And, of course, originally hell didn't even exist it was a question of oblivion vs. spend the afterlife in the radiance of god's presence. Not sure exactly where in the transformation from Judaism to Christianity that one happened but at the very least the vast majority of stuff about hell is bible fan-fiction.
Lol how does having that knowledge untainted message take away free will? To your example if someone doesn't know rape is illegal that doesn't mean it's a free pass if they rape someone and vice versa just because people know rape is illegal doesn't mean there aren't people raping other people out there.
Because knowledge is proof and in Christian understanding that would zonk your mind due to god's purported properties. Think of it like the ultimate high-ball, you'd instantly become a junkie.
What are you even saying? Just a long winded way to say "durrr you no comprehend God's will cause you silly stupid hoomen"
I mean there's a lot of things I don't understand, and don't think I can possibly understand, that are way smaller than how Christians describe god.
They understand it more like a consequence of physics, as a logically necessary property. Like a fat man jumping on a trampoline full of kids, sure they're still going to bounce but it won't be their bouncing, any more.
Which is my point, their god if they exist clearly isn't omnipotent, otherwise the dude could do anything from turning the frequency down to something us wittle itty bitty silly hoomens could understand or vice versa increase our mental aptitude and make us 'smarter'.
I mean he did by sending a less fat guy down (the one who got nailed to the cross). But jumping on a trampoline with Jesus doesn't constitute proof of the whole trinity shebang.
And yes the whole omnipotence thing breaks down as soon as you try to break logic with it. The Stoic take on that stuff makes a lot more sense: The gods are benevolent and the hardness we suffer is a product of their non-omnipotence, however they gave us that divine spark -- reason and wisdom -- to be able to get on top of things. They furnished the world to be as perfect as they could, the rest is up to us. Of course for the Stoics philosophy comes first, religion is simply some mythology to tack on afterwards.
I mean yes that idea has been in many religions since we were shitting on the grass living in huts. Greek mythology, Aztec mythology, Chinese mythology, Japanese mythology all follow similar lines of thought where you try to gain the attention of what ever god you're seeking favor from by doing X thing(s)(sacrifice of some sort, leave food/drink as offering, slaughtering other gods followers). But even that doesn't prove anything especially if they were truly benevolent why wouldn't they reveal themselves? And not just through a human but ACTUALLY reveal themselves.
Pagan gods do? I mean it's all biology/psychology but with plurality still intact instincts can self-portrait as archetypes, thereby more strongly influencing adaptation, seen either in dreams, visions, or projected out onto the world, also other people. The difference to ancestral cults (correctly understood) is merely sorting genetic knowledge (or better put expectations of the world) into categories so it's easier to spot. Read Freud for the basal instincts, Adler for the social ones, Jung for the actualising ones. Also, Panksepp.
Also, Thor exists. Proof: Christian churches have lightning rods.
Oh, thinking of it, that stuff is the one big truth contained in Christianity: The personal god / the priesthood of all believers. The rest is just fucking confused. Meister Eckhart definitely had something but it's kinda like Buddha trying to teach while avoiding getting burned at the stake so the conceptual framework is rather impenetrable as everything had to be cast into pre-existing doctrine.
Symbolic allotting of resources to an instinct, nourishing it, and, erm, pathos. Don't do the last one that's mania and gods are perfectly content with you sacrificing some time and mental space, the ritual is for you, not them. In any case if it loses its magic just because you wrap it in a materialist explanation it's not the real deal, yet you can repeat "I'm doing psychology" as mantra as much as you want when connecting up at that level but it's still going to feel religious -- because that's the quality of the qualia you see in that area: Magic happens because you didn't expect things. Otherwise it wouldn't feel that way, it's the sound of your mind getting a good knead-through.
They don't reveal themselves, no one ever saw the gods it's always stories conveying that they saw them or as you say "visions in their head". Guess what, I have a vision in my head of being a billionaire surrounded by a Haram of hot models all wanting to fulfill my every desire. Oh...gee...it's just a vision and not reality.
And you should read up on your gods, there are gods that absolutely want tributes, trinkets, and sacrifices in exchange for favors, hell Satan wants your soul for eternity in exchange for what ever you'll agree too according to the Christian texts. But whether you get peace or what ever reaction from performing said ritual means nothing to the actual intent of said ritual which is giving tribute to that specific god. Even in Christianity the prevailing belief is by worshipping god you will gain their favor and be granted a place in the magical eternal kingdom of heaven. That in and of itself is paying tribute in a ritual.
...to the gods that's exactly what I said. I get the distinct feeling that you didn't even read 10% of what I wrote.
"Don’t do the last one that’s mania and gods are perfectly content with you sacrificing some time and mental space, the ritual is for you, not them"
These are your literal words.
Yes. The ritual is for you (the ego) not for them (the instincts). To bring yourself into a mindstate where you aren't so pre-occupied with everyday stuff and the external world that you're ignoring messages from deeper inside yourself.
If you can switch channels without ritual then all the more power to you. Buddhists rightly caution against attachment to ritual, however, that doesn't mean that you can't use them -- only that you shouldn't get attached, lest things become performative. But attachment to "I will never sprinkle rice" (or what have you) is the same trap, easily itself an (internal) ritual.
And that's what I'm arguing it isn't for you. It's for them, the entire ritual(s) were made to show your submission and how much you are a good "follower" so they will show you favor. Look at the story of job, God burned all his shit, killed his family, all on a bet with the devil job won't still love God afterwards. And what does job do? Pray for forgiveness for what ever sin he's committed that supposedly pissed god off when the entire thing is a pissing contest between the devil and god.
Any inner peace or heightened senses you get are just a placebo from that ritual. Similar to the sports ritual like not washing your socks or having lucky underwear.
And that's why monotheism is a bad idea: You need to attribute everything to one single source. Now, if OTOH you understand it in the sense of "I paid too much attention to that one god while ignoring the advise of another, thus got inattentive" asking the latter god for forgiveness and calling up on a higher one with help to get those two to agree makes a lot more sense.
It's more about the acknowledgement, as an ego, that you're not the only one at the wheel. Gotta come to terms with your GPS and automatic shifter and respect the check engine light or things won't end well. You may think that those are passive signals but there's an intelligence behind lots of them, and some are perfectly capable of judging you to be the problematic car part. The crucial part is to stop fighting and dismissing and put round pegs in round holes, square ones in square holes. Use your faculties according to their nature, as the Stoics say.
And placebo effects are bad because...? I'd rather be happy because I'm well-aligned with myself than due to antidepressants. Also, peace isn't really the goal it's a side-effect. The mind of a sage is still not because they consider stillness to be good and therefore are still, but because the ten thousand things are insufficient to disturb them. (That's Zhuangzi, same book as the butterfly story).
That's not what the story of job is about even if you are entitled to your own interpretation(which goes back to my original point about why it's all left to interpretation.) Job wasn't punished because he didn't pay attention to Satan. Satan was the little imp on his shoulder telling him all these things about how God isn't righteous and he has forsaken him. It all started simply because God bragged about how devout and awesome Job was for following his teachings to Satan and Satan said "yeah well you got it all wrong, he only is so devout because you've rewarded him. Take away his rewards and he shall hate you." And Job did for a while before the age old bull shit about having 'faith' came into play at the end where he just basically accepts he's a Stoopid wittle hoomen who can't understand God's grand plan....which as we know as the person granted insight into God's thinking, was a literal pissing contest between the devil.
As for placebo effects, I never commented on the effects being good or bad on their own, all I commented on is that just because they are a by product of participating in the ritual, they aren't the goal of the ritual.
Yeah I'm not a fan of Christianity, the sensible interpretations are buried below layers and layers of apologetics, it's never straight forward and the obvious interpretations are often right-out dangerous. But other religions would describe the crisis of faith motive more in the way that I described.
According to whom. The purpose of a system is what it does. If an ancient Roman had relationship trouble and went to temple and underwent some rituals and then regularly gave offerings in private to the respective gods and it helped their marriage then it doesn't matter what they believed in, their reproductive success still increased. Darwin doesn't care what you believe, what matters is fitness. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if those temple rituals were overall more effective than modern-day marriage counselling.
According to the people who made the rituals, it's clearly laid out in several different religious books what the entire purpose of the rituals within said book are for. Just because you experience a side effects doesn't make the side effect the purpose.
The books describe how those people conceptualise things, not what the rituals are for, systemically speaking. As said: The purpose of a system is what it does. Try as hard as you might you won't get me to blaspheme cybernetics.
Are you really comfortable claiming that those conceptual frameworks aren't post-hoc rationalisation? "Oh I found myself doing XYZ which doesn't have discernible physical utility, but I also connect it to things working out well recently, it must be because there's some greater power I can reach in those ways, and this is how I imagine those powers to be". To me that sounds like an excellent null hypothesis.
I actually think we agree this far. The point of contention is whether we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.
An all knowing all powerful God is incompatible with free will.
Those ascriptions are incompatible with logical consistency in general. But a Christian would say: God chooses to not use power.
Because that would be boring.
If we had all the answers, we'd be all knowing. If we were all knowing we wouldn't be distinct beings, we'd just be part of some hive mind that is God. Like an appendage of God.
Free will requires each of us to be beings that have knowledge and the capability to make decisions (even bad ones) outside God's control.
The old paradox, if God was so powerful could he make a Rock so big even he couldn't move it? Basically what free will is. Something created by God that can't be controlled by God. If it we were controlled by God it would destroy free will, which is something a Creator can't do.
He could be very clear about the law and his expectations (or even the fact that he exists) and we would still have free will to choose to follow the law or not.
Did the people in the bible who actually saw him not have free will? Did Adam and Eve not have free will? Do the people in heaven not have free will?
It's a commonly touted excuse, but it falls apart under a modicum of scrutiny.
I see your belief system is focused on nitpicking details to avoid the point. Commonly touted among people in the atheist belief system LOL.
Next you'll say I don't actually believe in God unless I think the Bible is 100% literal, because that's the argument you want to be having. But that's a boring discussion, so good day to you sir.
Hilarious.
What nitpicking details are you talking about? You mentioned that if we knew the truth about god and his law we would be a hive mind and not have free will. I was responding to that point, not avoiding it at all. And the rest of your comment is a straw man arguing against some atheist you have in your mind and never once addressed the points I made.
I don't believe in that paradox because if God is all powerful he could indeed make a rock so big he couldn't move it in that moment and at the same time could move it. Because that's what omnipotence looks like.
Yes but if moving the rock destroys the rock, then if God did that, God would become a destroyer. If God is defined as being a Creator, destroying the rock results in God no longer being a Creator and therefore no longer God.
But a paradox doesn't disprove the existence of God. Life is full of paradoxes. Like quantum physics, WTF is going on there? I don't know, it's a thing that exists even though it doesn't make any sense.
Wtf are you babbling about god has destroyed plenty of things, like when they supposedly drowned all the world during the Noah's ark arc, to the destruction of the cities of Sodom and gamorra.