Problem with earthly religions

[Michael]

The problem with all earthly religions...

If all the major religions assert that forgiveness is unlimited, and that God's paradise is 'other-worldly' (i.e. not of this world) why is it that the vast majority of earthly religions are focused entirely upon making and enforcing rules for earthly behavior?

Is this not a theological contradiction? If only the personal relationship with God, or faith alone, or the everlasting soul is important to God, why are earthly religions so obsessive about controlling earthly behavior? Their own doctrine holds that any earthly act can be forgiven by God - so why so much unforgiving treatment and intolerance from the religions? That makes no sense.

It looks as if religion is all about 'earthly power and political control' and that the God-stuff is just metaphysical mumbo-jumbo meant to confuse people (but isn't all that important compared with expressions of intolerance and unforgivingness of one's political enemies).

Can anyone explain this apparent contradiction? Or explain the method in this madness?

[partofme]

I always took it as sort of a test of character or willingness to obey and worship in order to earn a ticket into heaven.

[Non Sequitur]

The problem with all earthly religions...

If all the major religions assert that forgiveness is unlimited, and that God's paradise is 'other-worldly' (i.e. not of this world) why is it that the vast majority of earthly religions are focused entirely upon making and enforcing rules for earthly behavior?

Is this not a theological contradiction? If only the personal relationship with God, or faith alone, or the everlasting soul is important to God, why are earthly religions so obsessive about controlling earthly behavior? Their own doctrine holds that any earthly act can be forgiven by God - so why so much unforgiving treatment and intolerance from the religions? That makes no sense.

It looks as if religion is all about 'earthly power and political control' and that the God-stuff is just metaphysical mumbo-jumbo meant to confuse people (but isn't all that important compared with expressions of intolerance and unforgivingness of one's political enemies).

Can anyone explain this apparent contradiction? Or explain the method in this madness?

I wonder if you could give me some specific examples of what you are talking about so I could get a handle on the issue more. From reading you post though, I see a couple misconceptions such as

1. You stated that all major religions believe in unconditional forgiveness. While this is an important part of some religions, not even all of Christianity is agreed on this point. While Lutheran theology tends to stress unconditional forgiveness this is by no means universal.

2. On that same point, while forgiveness is unlimited part of forgiveness is an attempt to stop doing the thing you are forgiven for; commonly called repentance. Thus, if you keep participating in the sin even though you ask for forgiveness you are participating in something Christians call "cheap Grace." It is attempt to pardon the sin, not the sinner. An example of this is the Evangelical Christian conception of homosexuality. While I personally don't buy into any of this, the standard argument goes something like this: homosexual sex is a sin, if one continues to participate in this act of sin, you are not truly repentant of your sin. As i said, I don't buy into that particular example. If you accept this, than the concentration on behavior (or ethics) is obvious. We need to not only ask for forgiveness, but also concentrate on living holier lives.

[Donkey]

I guess the idea is that we should be virtuous because, regardless of consequences, it is what is right.

[SMadsen]

I guess the idea is that we should be virtuous because, regardless of consequences, it is what is right.
The religious idea is usually to promote virtuousness on the account of consequences. We should be virtuous because of consequences.

I agree with Michael that this doesn't play along, logically, with the idea of forgiveness. But it does indeed lead to the desire for salvation, i.e. new 'memberships', and, as far as I can tell, that's pretty much all that religions are about. Without strong awareness of the self, i.e. the desire to mirror the self in other people and, subsequently, mirror other people in the self, religion wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

[The Drunk Guy]

You do realize that you are referring to the logic of religions where in man was created from clay, Jesus walked on water and rose from the dead, and a book was spoken to a lone man in a desert cave in order to enlighten the world, don't you?

;)

[SMadsen]

I like to think it's lack of logic that's being referred to rather than logic :)

[Michael]

I wonder if you could give me some specific examples of what you are talking about so I could get a handle on the issue more.
I suppose I was trying (poorly) to make a general argument about 'heavenly' forgiveness versus 'earthly' intolerance. Deep down, I suppose I'm getting at the distinction between 'heavenly' faith and 'earthly' religion.


From reading you post though, I see a couple misconceptions such as

1. You stated that all major religions believe in unconditional forgiveness. While this is an important part of some religions, not even all of Christianity is agreed on this point. While Lutheran theology tends to stress unconditional forgiveness this is by no means universal.
Yes, I agree that unconditional forgiveness isn't universal to all 'earthly religions' but forgiveness by God is common to the 'big three' - and this is predicated on faith, not earthly acts.

2. On that same point, while forgiveness is unlimited part of forgiveness is an attempt to stop doing the thing you are forgiven for; commonly called repentance. Thus, if you keep participating in the sin even though you ask for forgiveness you are participating in something Christians call "cheap Grace." It is attempt to pardon the sin, not the sinner. An example of this is the Evangelical Christian conception of homosexuality. While I personally don't buy into any of this, the standard argument goes something like this: homosexual sex is a sin, if one continues to participate in this act of sin, you are not truly repentant of your sin. As i said, I don't buy into that particular example. If you accept this, than the concentration on behavior (or ethics) is obvious. We need to not only ask for forgiveness, but also concentrate on living holier lives.
That's exactly the kind of issue I was thinking about. It is just so arbitrary that I have to assume that it is entirely driven by 'earthly' politics, not 'heavenly religion'.

Why doesn't anyone care about the sin of divorce? Or the sin of lying? Or bearing false witness? Or coveting thy neighbor's wife? These sins are all bloody common as all hell (and repeated constantly). But they all seem to get a 'pass' from the religious types. Only the sin of 'gay' is singled out. That says "politics" not religion is driving the program.

[Non Sequitur]

I suppose I was trying (poorly) to make a general argument about 'heavenly' forgiveness versus 'earthly' intolerance. Deep down, I suppose I'm getting at the distinction between 'heavenly' faith and 'earthly' religion.


Yes, I agree that unconditional forgiveness isn't universal to all 'earthly religions' but forgiveness by God is common to the 'big three' - and this is predicated on faith, not earthly acts.


That's exactly the kind of issue I was thinking about. It is just so arbitrary that I have to assume that it is entirely driven by 'earthly' politics, not 'heavenly religion'.

Why doesn't anyone care about the sin of divorce? Or the sin of lying? Or bearing false witness? Or coveting thy neighbor's wife? These sins are all bloody common as all hell (and repeated constantly). But they all seem to get a 'pass' from the religious types. Only the sin of 'gay' is singled out. That says "politics" not religion is driving the program.

Ah well if you're asking why homosexuality has so much attention I cannot answer that one. It bewilders even me. I have spent much time trying to convince people that homosexuality does not deserve the focus it gets, but i think it boils down to people thinking it's icky.

[Donkey]

Ah well if you're asking why homosexuality has so much attention I cannot answer that one. It bewilders even me. I have spent much time trying to convince people that homosexuality does not deserve the focus it gets, but i think it boils down to people thinking it's icky.
There is no rhyme or reason to most of applied morality.

[Donkey]

The religious idea is usually to promote virtuousness on the account of consequences. We should be virtuous because of consequences.
I disagree. I think that sometimes the fear of consequences is the enforcer of morality. The "just in case you disagree with God you'll be punished dammit," but I think if you pushed religious people, and gave them the hypothetical of a "no punishment" paradigm, they would assert that morals must be followed because they are precisely that, moral.

Morals may proceed from God, but God by definition is inseparable from morality. God and morals is intrinsic to existence. Punishment is not.

[Non Sequitur]

There is no rhyme or reason to most of applied morality.

Well, i would disagree. usually there is a certain logic to it given some basic presuppositions. What confuses me is that i hold many of the same basic presuppositions with the conservative Christian crowd and i can't figure out why this sin is so important.

[Donkey]

Well, i would disagree. usually there is a certain logic to it given some basic presuppositions. What confuses me is that i hold many of the same basic presuppositions with the conservative Christian crowd and i can't figure out why this sin is so important.
Ok, I guess there is a rhyme... ;)

But I don't think there is any logic for a given sin, e.g. homosexuality, to be more important than another.

That doesn't mean all morality is illogical though.

[andrewl]

The problem with all earthly religions...

If all the major religions assert that forgiveness is unlimited, and that God's paradise is 'other-worldly' (i.e. not of this world) why is it that the vast majority of earthly religions are focused entirely upon making and enforcing rules for earthly behavior?

Is this not a theological contradiction? If only the personal relationship with God, or faith alone, or the everlasting soul is important to God, why are earthly religions so obsessive about controlling earthly behavior? Their own doctrine holds that any earthly act can be forgiven by God - so why so much unforgiving treatment and intolerance from the religions? That makes no sense.

It looks as if religion is all about 'earthly power and political control' and that the God-stuff is just metaphysical mumbo-jumbo meant to confuse people (but isn't all that important compared with expressions of intolerance and unforgivingness of one's political enemies).

Can anyone explain this apparent contradiction? Or explain the method in this madness?

The problem is that the earthly religions are not really earthly at all, their focus is in the heavens. The big three religions contain within them an implicit denial of our earthly origins. This naturally leads to a general belief that "worship" of "earthly" things is considered immoral and something to be corrected and the abusers punished.

But it became clear overtime that people indulging in their animal tendencies is not something that can be eliminated by punishment or threat of hell. And so these religions became one where earthly things are a temptation to be resisted in order to make oneself more divine and pure. Resistance of temptation leads to discipline and discipline leads to a predictable and orderly society.

Forgiveness is really just a weakness of religion. People have to be redeemable or they might just give up. Somebody who thinks they are going to hell with no chance of redemption, salvation, or forgiveness for engaging in any of the earthly sins might not try to avoid these things in the future, its would be too late anyway so might as well indulge freely.

Forgiveness is just a shortening of the stick and an extension of the carrot.

Andrew

[Non Sequitur]

Ok, I guess there is a rhyme... ;)

But I don't think there is any logic for a given sin, e.g. homosexuality, to be more important than another.

That doesn't mean all morality is illogical though.

As I said, the focus on homosexuality is puzzling to me and most of moderate to liberal Christianity.

[Donkey]

As I said, the focus on homosexuality is puzzling to me and most of moderate to liberal Christianity.
When I still counted in the ranks of the religious, it was more than puzzling, it was offensive.

Still kind of is actually.

[Michael]

Ah well if you're asking why homosexuality has so much attention I cannot answer that one. It bewilders even me. I have spent much time trying to convince people that homosexuality does not deserve the focus it gets, but i think it boils down to people thinking it's icky.
I'm not specifically inquiring as to why homosexuality gets so much 'negative' attention from religious and/or non-religious folks. But if I did, I'd probably agree with your assertion above. ;)

Rather, I'm asking the general question of why 'Godly' religions focus so intently upon "earthly" sins, given the doctrine of God's forgiveness and the principle of 'otherworldly' faith. This appears to be fundamentally contradictory. It is as if we are looking at two different and unrelated phenomena here, that just happen to share some common ground. I'm just looking at the basic logic of the concepts here, entirely in the abstract, but I must agree that the issue of homosexuality (and/or divorce) is a good example to use for this type of discussion.

...What confuses me is that i hold many of the same basic presuppositions with the conservative Christian crowd and i can't figure out why this sin is so important.
Quick question, do you hold the same political views as those 'rightwing' evangelical Christians that are most known for 'moral crusading against gays'?

That question probably goes right to the heart of my inquiry in this thread.

Or to put it another way, I'd assert that there is no substantial religious reason for 'gays' to be singled out for moral crusading by the American Christians. From a religious perspective (or scriptural one) divorce is certainly an 'equivilent' sin with respect to biblical focus upon the issue (content analysis of the Bible says that 'divorce' is mentioned with greater frequency with strong negative language than 'sodomy'). Now I don't want to get into a petty argument about 'greater' or 'lesser' sins - I think that's silly. My only reason for using homosexuality here is because other people have raised that issue.

The key point here is that there certainly are lots of rational political reasons for American Christian conservatives to want to engage in this particular 'crusade' against gay rights.

If the religious argument in favor of 'selectively anti-gay' activism is weak, but the political argument in favor of 'selectively anti-gay' is very strong, would you not agree that it is reasonable and rational to assert that the motive here is 'political' and not necessarily religious?

I suppose that I'm testing the argument that the 'crusade against gays' (for example) is driven entirely by politics, not religion itself. But that is only opportunism on my part - since that's the direction people took the thread. More particularly, I'm interested in probing as to where the 'invisible line' between religion and politics lies. That's the real point of this thread. :)

[Non Sequitur]

I'm not specifically inquiring as to why homosexuality gets so much 'negative' attention from religious and/or non-religious folks. But if I did, I'd probably agree with your assertion above. ;)

Rather, I'm asking the general question of why 'Godly' religions focus so intently upon "earthly" sins, given the doctrine of God's forgiveness and the principle of 'otherworldly' faith. This appears to be fundamentally contradictory. It is as if we are looking at two different and unrelated phenomena here, that just happen to share some common ground. I'm just looking at the basic logic of the concepts here, entirely in the abstract, but I must agree that the issue of homosexuality (and/or divorce) is a good example to use for this type of discussion.

OK well the general thinking goes something like this:

The Abrahamic faiths usually put an emphasis on how they are not just otherworldly. In fact if you look at the biggest heresies within Christianity, you can trace their root problem to an overemphasized otherworldliness. The best example is Gnosticism. The Abrahamic faiths have emphasis on earthly deeds because this life is not just a trial run, but the real thing. Within Christian theology, "Jesus says: so a good tree produces good fruit" and "by their fruits you shall know them." Even Luther argues that earthly deeds matter, but only with faith. A passage that is often quoted the wrong way, but is useful here is from James "Faith without works is dead." Commonly this is used to promote some kind of theology of works, but really what it is stalking about is how we cannot just say "anything goes because of forgiveness" or as the Bible says "should we let sin abound that Grace may abound further? By no means!"

Quick question, do you hold the same political views as those 'rightwing' evangelical Christians that are most known for 'moral crusading against gays'?

haha, I have no political similarities with the more conservative side of Christianity except for the fact that i tend to vote republican. I don't even acknowledge the "sanctity of marriage"



That question probably goes right to the heart of my inquiry in this thread.

Or to put it another way, I'd assert that there is no substantial religious reason for 'gays' to be singled out for moral crusading by the American Christians. From a religious perspective (or scriptural one) divorce is certainly an 'equivilent' sin with respect to biblical focus upon the issue (content analysis of the Bible says that 'divorce' is mentioned with greater frequency with strong negative language than 'sodomy'). Now I don't want to get into a petty argument about 'greater' or 'lesser' sins - I think that's silly. My only reason for using homosexuality here is because other people have raised that issue.

The key point here is that there certainly are lots of rational political reasons for American Christian conservatives to want to engage in this particular 'crusade' against gay rights.

If the religious argument in favor of 'selectively anti-gay' activism is weak, but the political argument in favor of 'selectively anti-gay' is very strong, would you not agree that it is reasonable and rational to assert that the motive here is 'political' and not necessarily religious?

I suppose that I'm testing the argument that the 'crusade against gays' (for example) is driven entirely by politics, not religion itself. But that is only opportunism on my part - since that's the direction people took the thread. More particularly, I'm interested in probing as to where the 'invisible line' between religion and politics lies. That's the real point of this thread. :)

Ok well the religious case for Homosexuality as a sin is strong if you read the Bible a certain way, but you have to read it their way for it to be strong.

As for the line between politics and religion that's very difficult. I find that the line is usually determined by answering the following series of questions

1. Do you believe it is our duty to create a more "holy" nation?

2. Do you think we can become less sinful?

3. If yes to question 2, then is it the churches place to enforce such efforts by any reasonable means?

Usually people who answer yes to questions 2 and 3 answer yes to 1. Question 2 is the focus of our conversation. If you answer yes, then it becomes not only good, but your duty as a believer to try and become less sinful.

(by the way i answer no to all three)

[SMadsen]

Forgiveness is really just a weakness of religion. People have to be redeemable or they might just give up. Somebody who thinks they are going to hell with no chance of redemption, salvation, or forgiveness for engaging in any of the earthly sins might not try to avoid these things in the future, its would be too late anyway so might as well indulge freely.

Forgiveness is just a shortening of the stick and an extension of the carrot.
If there is no chance of forgiveness then forgiveness would certainly be a weakness. However, since religions offer forgiveness it is far from a weakness. In fact, guilt is the most powerful issue religions have to work with and that means that forgiveness is the number one most powerful idea religions have to offer.

All religions are about what they can do for the self and a way to rid the self of guilt means more than anything else. Forgiveness and sacrifice are irrevocably intertwined.

[andrewl]

If there is no chance of forgiveness then forgiveness would certainly be a weakness. However, since religions offer forgiveness it is far from a weakness. In fact, guilt is the most powerful issue religions have to work with and that means that forgiveness is the number one most powerful idea religions have to offer.

All religions are about what they can do for the self and a way to rid the self of guilt means more than anything else. Forgiveness and sacrifice are irrevocably intertwined.

I mean its a weakness in the sense that religious authorities gave up damning people for all eternity in favor of offering them forgiveness.

Imagine if Catholics could not be forgiven for using birth control? The church membership would be way more plentiful than it is now.

Andrew

[SMadsen]

I mean its a weakness in the sense that religious authorities gave up damning people for all eternity in favor of offering them forgiveness.

Imagine if Catholics could not be forgiven for using birth control? The church membership would be way more plentiful than it is now.

Andrew
I think church membership would shrink severely. Maybe even to a degree that there would no longer be a church.

[andrewl]

I think church membership would shrink severely. Maybe even to a degree that there would no longer be a church.

I meant that as a joke... but it seems like you are saying that people ultimately don't believe that the church speaks the truth. Surely they would not stop going to church just because the punishment seems too harsh for misbehaving - why would they just not take the pope's word for it if he said use a condom and go to hell, no forgiveness. Why would they listen to the pope on any issue if they thought it was all just a bunch of old men in funny suits and hats partaking in moral relativity.

Andrew

[SMadsen]

I meant that as a joke... but it seems like you are saying that people ultimately don't believe that the church speaks the truth. Surely they would not stop going to church just because the punishment seems too harsh for misbehaving - why would they just not take the pope's word for it if he said use a condom and go to hell, no forgiveness. Why would they listen to the pope on any issue if they thought it was all just a bunch of old men in funny suits and hats partaking in moral relativity.

Andrew
Sorry, I didn't get that you meant it as a joke :o

People would stop going to church if it didn't offer forgiveness. The sentiment to adhere to Christian theology, and thereby attend any church of a Christian denomination, would become non-existent.

[Michael]

People would stop going to church if it didn't offer forgiveness. The sentiment to adhere to Christian theology, and thereby attend any church of a Christian denomination, would become non-existent.

My analysis suggests that this is quite unlikely.

Surveys already show that some regular "church-goers" pay virtually no attention to religion. They go to church because "it is the right thing to do" or that's what "they are supposed to do".

In many small towns, to no go to church is to commit social suicide. Or to not get that promotion.

Fact is, lots of people have perfectly rational reasons to go to church that have nothing to do with religion.

Opinion surveys also show that the vast majority of the public don't have a clue about the actual doctrines of religion. Many say they believe in God and Christianity (for example) but don't actually believe Jesus is the Son of God or that heaven (or hell) exists.

Btw, MacLeans Magazine (a Canadian news magazine) has been doing an annual religious survey in Canada for decades - it is full of unexpected information - such as the examples I note above. Sure 90% of the population admits to believing in God, but that number keeps dropping as you raise the bar on religious questions. My reading of the survey suggests that only about 25% of the population is actually Christian (actually believe the doctrines of Christianity) - yet 90% claim they are.

[SMadsen]

90% of Canadians? Again, as in the case of the Alberta proposal, I have to review my perception of Canadians! :)

[andrewl]

Sorry, I didn't get that you meant it as a joke :o

People would stop going to church if it didn't offer forgiveness. The sentiment to adhere to Christian theology, and thereby attend any church of a Christian denomination, would become non-existent.


That is what i was getting at in my OP. Although i was not really limiting it to church, just religious adherence to any religion that offers forgiveness. It seems the rules are made according to the whims of mere mortals, as opposed to the word of the almighty god. In so far as god is the creator and supreme ruler of the universe, i find that forgiveness is a weakness of religion in that it bends to the limits of human psychology.

Andrew

[SMadsen]

That is what i was getting at in my OP. Although i was not really limiting it to church, just religious adherence to any religion that offers forgiveness. It seems the rules are made according to the whims of mere mortals, as opposed to the word of the almighty god. In so far as god is the creator and supreme ruler of the universe, i find that forgiveness is a weakness of religion in that it bends to the limits of human psychology.

Andrew
Andrewl, I still don't get what you mean. Rules are made at the whims of 'mere mortals', aka. humans. Why wouldn't they be since gods are indeed products of human psychology. Needing forgiveness is also a product of human psychology. Hence, humans adhere to rules that lead to forgiveness. That seems to me like a strength of religions. Not a weakness.

When adherents to 'primitive' religions sacrifice to the gods in return for, say, better harvests, it's an appeal to mercy, aka. forgiveness. It's what carries the entire concept of religion.

[Non Sequitur]

Sorry, I didn't get that you meant it as a joke :o

People would stop going to church if it didn't offer forgiveness. The sentiment to adhere to Christian theology, and thereby attend any church of a Christian denomination, would become non-existent.



OK, i was going to try and stay out of this part of the discussion, but i must clear up this misconception. I cannot speak for all other religions, but in Christian theology and tradition worship is given to God because it is our duty to worship him. The liturgical language says "it is indeed our right, duty, and joy to at all times and in places offer praises to you, oh Lord." Whether God bestows mercy or not, it is our obligation to offer praise.

[SMadsen]

OK, i was going to try and stay out of this part of the discussion, but i must clear up this misconception. I cannot speak for all other religions, but in Christian theology and tradition worship is given to God because it is our duty to worship him. The liturgical language says "it is indeed our right, duty, and joy to at all times and in places offer praises to you, oh Lord." Whether God bestows mercy or not, it is our obligation to offer praise.
Absolutely. And why is it an obligation to offer praise?

[andrewl]

Andrewl, I still don't get what you mean. Rules are made at the whims of 'mere mortals', aka. humans. Why wouldn't they be since gods are indeed products of human psychology. Needing forgiveness is also a product of human psychology. Hence, humans adhere to rules that lead to forgiveness. That seems to me like a strength of religions. Not a weakness.

I think its a weakness because if one is truly a believer he cannot admit to anything you just said above.

When adherents to 'primitive' religions sacrifice to the gods in return for, say, better harvests, it's an appeal to mercy, aka. forgiveness. It's what carries the entire concept of religion.


Well, i was not referring to pagan religions. Those gods were quarrelsome and petty, sacrifices to them were mainly about keeping them content so that they would not meddle for their own entertainment and pleasure, it was not about forgiveness.

Andrew

[Michael]

90% of Canadians? Again, as in the case of the Alberta proposal, I have to review my perception of Canadians! :)
It all depends on the phrasing of the question. MacLeans, being very much part of the Canadian establishment, does its best to present the highest number possible by making the question as meaningless as possible.

If one is more agressive about the questions (or the data), Canada shows up with a level of atheism that is comparable to western European standards (roughly 25-35% of the population is 'non-religious').

One complicating factor that I've observed on this particular topic is the fact that many people may assert "Christian" or "Jewish" as their own cultural-ethnic identity entirely independent of any religious content to their statement. They may in fact claim to be "Christian" yet don't actually believe in God or the divinity of Jesus Christ. This is remarkably common here in Canada. This is how some people see themselves - I can't disagree with this conception since it does make some sense. I certainly was raised "as a Christian" myself - it is very much a part of my ethnic heritage. I choose to reject it, but that's my conscious choice. Many people don't actually do that, they just let it slide until it is gone in reality, but they didn't notice it disappearing so they just assume it is still there. Or to put it another way, some people believe that they were 'born' a Christian and that's all there is to it, regardless of any religious opinions they may hold.

As I'm so fond of pointing out - humans just aren't all that rational! ;)

[Non Sequitur]

Absolutely. And why is it an obligation to offer praise?

Several reasons, but the primary two are as follows

1) God is creator. The author of all being.

2) God is redeemer. This is equally important.

[SMadsen]

Several reasons, but the primary two are as follows

1) God is creator. The author of all being.

2) God is redeemer. This is equally important.
Exactly. I'm a bit confused about what it is you consider to be a misconception, Non Sequitur. Redemption is forgiveness.

[SMadsen]

I think its a weakness because if one is truly a believer he cannot admit to anything you just said above.
Oh, I think I see now. But if what you mean is that it's a weakness that his belief is predicated upon illusions then I'll still have to disagree. The strength of an illusion solely depends on people believing in it.

Well, i was not referring to pagan religions. Those gods were quarrelsome and petty, sacrifices to them were mainly about keeping them content so that they would not meddle for their own entertainment and pleasure, it was not about forgiveness.

Andrew
Different stories, same usage.

[SMadsen]

It all depends on the phrasing of the question. MacLeans, being very much part of the Canadian establishment, does its best to present the highest number possible by making the question as meaningless as possible.

If one is more agressive about the questions (or the data), Canada shows up with a level of atheism that is comparable to western European standards (roughly 25-35% of the population is 'non-religious').

One complicating factor that I've observed on this particular topic is the fact that many people may assert "Christian" or "Jewish" as their own cultural-ethnic identity entirely independent of any religious content to their statement. They may in fact claim to be "Christian" yet don't actually believe in God or the divinity of Jesus Christ. This is remarkably common here in Canada. This is how some people see themselves - I can't disagree with this conception since it does make some sense. I certainly was raised "as a Christian" myself - it is very much a part of my ethnic heritage. I choose to reject it, but that's my conscious choice. Many people don't actually do that, they just let it slide until it is gone in reality, but they didn't notice it disappearing so they just assume it is still there. Or to put it another way, some people believe that they were 'born' a Christian and that's all there is to it, regardless of any religious opinions they may hold.

As I'm so fond of pointing out - humans just aren't all that rational! ;)
Yes, it does indeed make sense. I also think it tends to shift by which standards people seek to establish identity. When Baader-Meinhof stole the focus, identity shifted towards the political. Especially after 9/11, identities seem to be about religious associations (somewhat amplified by the if-you're-not-with-us-you're-against-us mentality). It doesn't necessarily reflect actual beliefs.

[bug]

I think I'm getting into this discussion a little late, but thoughts on the OP....

I think the weirdest thing about the "what you do here determines your eternal outcome" way of approaching religion is what a blip on the radar our lives on earth are. So, there was an eternity before us, there is to be an eternity after us, and what we do for 80 years determines such significance.

Infinity<----------------------------+-------------------------------->Infinity

oooooooooooooooooooooooolooooooo^
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooyou are here


Seriously? That speck is what makes or breaks a length of time that is inconceivable, and without end? That seems disproportionate to me.

Also, I know we're a little past this, but I think that homosexuality has taken the role of Absolute Worst Sin because of #1--distaste (yes, even icky) and #2--its battle in the legal world of possibly being accepted. Christians are saying "It's one thing what sins are being committed by the general populous, and it's quite another when a whole society legalizes it and boldly, as a nation, declares it okay." Sodom and Gomorrah may or may not be mentioned (interpret as: will definitely be mentioned), maybe with a little Apocolypse thrown in for flavor. I agree that the Bible, read the way Christians read it, is against homosexuality, but read with no church-given filter/magic decoder ring, never says homosexuality is a sin at all. It is as passive about homosexuality as it is about liquor, where the Bible casually and infrequently mentioned that you "probably shouldn't get too drunk, but whatever". Also, there's not a thing about lesbianism in there. I guess one might presume that nothing women did ever really mattered back then (or maybe that God liked to watch as much as the next guy). At any rate, if it wasn't in contest in the government, I don't think there'd be much of a stir about homosexuality. When it's legalized, the stir will die down. I wish it would hurry up.

[Michael]

I think I'm getting into this discussion a little late, but thoughts on the OP....

I think the weirdest thing about the "what you do here determines your eternal outcome" way of approaching religion is what a blip on the radar our lives on earth are. So, there was an eternity before us, there is to be an eternity after us, and what we do for 80 years determines such significance.

Infinity<----------------------------+-------------------------------->Infinity

oooooooooooooooooooooooolooooooo^
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooyou are here


Seriously? That speck is what makes or breaks a length of time that is inconceivable, and without end? That seems disproportionate to me.
I just noticed how you did that 'centering' with white characters - there is a /center command available to make it much easier! :)

.............................centering test..............................
|
you are here

* * *

That's because you are approaching the question here from the perspective of non-religion to begin with. Of course you won't see it the 'religious' way - your model is designed not to.

A religous person might see your diagram differently:

"God creates you"....... "you" ....... "God's judgement of you"

or alternatively,

"God creates world"....... "you"...... "God's infinite paradise world"

That model produces a slightly different perspective on the significance of "you" doesn't it?

Also, I know we're a little past this, but I think that homosexuality has taken the role of Absolute Worst Sin because of #1--distaste (yes, even icky) and #2--its battle in the legal world of possibly being accepted. Christians are saying "It's one thing what sins are being committed by the general populous, and it's quite another when a whole society legalizes it and boldly, as a nation, declares it okay." Sodom and Gomorrah may or may not be mentioned (interpret as: will definitely be mentioned), maybe with a little Apocolypse thrown in for flavor. I agree that the Bible, read the way Christians read it, is against homosexuality, but read with no church-given filter/magic decoder ring, never says homosexuality is a sin at all. It is as passive about homosexuality as it is about liquor, where the Bible casually and infrequently mentioned that you "probably shouldn't get too drunk, but whatever". Also, there's not a thing about lesbianism in there. I guess one might presume that nothing women did ever really mattered back then (or maybe that God liked to watch as much as the next guy). At any rate, if it wasn't in contest in the government, I don't think there'd be much of a stir about homosexuality. When it's legalized, the stir will die down. I wish it would hurry up.
I partially agree. :D

Yes, the "icky" factor is part of it, but I see the key factor as pure conservativism on social change. It is pure politics here - social conservatives vs social liberals. The social conservatives have lost a couple of dozen major political battles over the last century. The 'panic' level religious rhetoric vs gay marriage is no different than the 'panic' level religious rhetoric that the same groups used against civil rights campaigners and anti-slavery campaigners or pro-union campaigners or women's vote campaigners in the past. If anything, the 'extremism' on the gay rights issue is just a symbolic line in the sand coming from a political faction that is loosing power day by day.

That is to say, I think the 'religious-right' people got mobilized into the issue by the 'political-right' people. This is a relatively 'new' political strategy. Yet it is just another failed strategy from the social conservative faction - since gay marriage proceeds to advance. But the religious 'damage' is going to be hard to 'undo'. This is what happens when religious doctrine becomes too closely entangled with political doctrine - religion always loses. That's the true origin of the principle of separation of church and state - that it is to protect the sanctity and integrity of religion (not necessarily the state!).

[SMadsen]

But the religious 'damage' is going to be hard to 'undo'. This is what happens when religious doctrine becomes too closely entangled with political doctrine - religion always loses. That's the true origin of the principle of separation of church and state - that it is to protect the sanctity and integrity of religion (not necessarily the state!).
The latter sentence is a rather bold statement, I think. What points to such a principle, - other than it perhaps sounds probable or reasonable?

[Michael]

The latter sentence is a rather bold statement, I think. What points to such a principle, - other than it perhaps sounds probable or reasonable?

Many people (today) seem to think that the principle of Church and State was devised as a method of "protecting" the State from the encroachments of religion.

I think it is important to remember exactly who created the concept and why. It was religious people concerned about the integrity of religion and afraid of the secular corruption that political power always brings into to the Church.

I'll find you some links if you are interested in this - the movement for separation of church and state originates amongst the religious set long before 'enlightenment liberals' adopted the principle. Indeed, the movement begins shortly after Luther (no doubt inspired by Luther's teachings). For the Catholics, the movement (a minority of course) was part of the 'counter-reformation'.

[SMadsen]

Many people (today) seem to think that the principle of Church and State was devised as a method of "protecting" the State from the encroachments of religion.

I think it is important to remember exactly who created the concept and why. It was religious people concerned about the integrity of religion and afraid of the secular corruption that political power always brings into to the Church.

I'll find you some links if you are interested in this - the movement for separation of church and state originates amongst the religious set long before 'enlightenment liberals' adopted the principle. Indeed, the movement begins shortly after Luther (no doubt inspired by Luther's teachings). For the Catholics, the movement (a minority of course) was part of the 'counter-reformation'.
Well, I think it was deviced as a method of protecting citizen rights from the encroachment of religion, - that is, to build a legal institution protected from the encroachment of religion.

Yes, I'd be interested in relevant links and, perhaps, if not obviously relevant, why you find them relevant.


For what it's worth, I always thought the seeds were laid well before Luther. If we go back to Henry the First's Charter, it did indeed limit the powers of the king in relation to the Church but also in relation to nobility. When the Pope a century later had a bit of a quarrel with King John about the election of a bishop, i.e., essentially about the powers of the king in relation to the Church, it also happened simultaneously with the nobles' concern over the powers of the monarch. I've always considered the result of those concerns, the Magna Carta, as the basis for separating Church and state, - never really for the sake of the Church but first and foremost for the sake of building a justice system with powers separate from both the Church and the king.

[Non Sequitur]

Exactly. I'm a bit confused about what it is you consider to be a misconception, Non Sequitur. Redemption is forgiveness.

ok, well when I was reading your discussion with Andrewl it seemed like the idea was that people worship God because they get something out of it. They get there guilt relieved or they feel better about themselves. This is the misconception (maybe thats not what was intended so correct me if I am wrong).

[bug]

That's the true origin of the principle of separation of church and state - that it is to protect the sanctity and integrity of religion (not necessarily the state!).
Wow. What a mindtwist. I never thought of that.

[andrewl]

ok, well when I was reading your discussion with Andrewl it seemed like the idea was that people worship God because they get something out of it. They get there guilt relieved or they feel better about themselves. This is the misconception (maybe thats not what was intended so correct me if I am wrong).

Religious people would be a tiny minority if people they didn't think they were getting something out of it. Even something as non-religious as a social life seems to suffice for many people to attend church regularly.

Perhaps the genuinely religious person is doing it out of duty to the one true god, but there can't be too many people like that i would think??

Andrew

[Michael]

Religious people would be a tiny minority if people they didn't think they were getting something out of it. Even something as non-religious as a social life seems to suffice for many people to attend church regularly.

Perhaps the genuinely religious person is doing it out of duty to the one true god, but there can't be too many people like that i would think??

Andrew
Actually, I think you can turn this one around. Non-religious people are in fact the tiny minority on this planet.

As for going to church, I should think the immortality angle would be the main driver there. The social angle just reinforces the commitment.

Indeed, it takes an 'active' will to NOT go to church. Going to church has always been the default option.

[andrewl]

Actually, I think you can turn this one around. Non-religious people are in fact the tiny minority on this planet.

As for going to church, I should think the immortality angle would be the main driver there. The social angle just reinforces the commitment.

Indeed, it takes an 'active' will to NOT go to church. Going to church has always been the default option.

lol.... not too long ago it would have been a direct threat to your well being not to go to church.

Andrew

[SMadsen]

ok, well when I was reading your discussion with Andrewl it seemed like the idea was that people worship God because they get something out of it. They get there guilt relieved or they feel better about themselves. This is the misconception (maybe thats not what was intended so correct me if I am wrong).
I do indeed assert that people get something out of it. Although I have first hand experience with people trying to force themselves to believe as results of very conscious desires, it is quite rarely and not at all necessarily a conscious desire to get relieved from guilt or feel better. All that usually comes as social programming through upbringing (this is why the slow steady programming is merely called a religious upbringing while the quick programming is called a 'brain wash' although it results in exactly the same :) ).

My assertion is that especially Christianity wouldn't exist without the combination of original sin and a savior entity but really that all religions are about mercy and forgiveness. It doesn't matter if it's a ritual sacrifice in favor of a good harvest, ritual thanksgiving to ancestors or a high mass, - all happens along the line of "please show me/us mercy in spite of".

[Non Sequitur]

Religious people would be a tiny minority if people they didn't think they were getting something out of it. Even something as non-religious as a social life seems to suffice for many people to attend church regularly.

Perhaps the genuinely religious person is doing it out of duty to the one true god, but there can't be too many people like that i would think??

Andrew

I'll grant you that entire statement as true. Within Christian theology there is the distinction between the visible church (those physically see in the building) and the invisible church (those who are citizens of the Kingdom of God). While we are judge of who is who, the Bible is clear that everyone in the visible church is not a member of the invisible church. When comparing the kingdom of Heaven to something, Jesus always uses small things (mustard seed, small coin, etc...).

My contention, though, is when we talk about the truly religious person (and there more of them then you think).