April 22, 2005

• If you're an atheist why would you care about getting excommunicated?
• I'm an atheist and I'm always looking for ways to thumb my nose at religion. Thanks! Also if you are baptized roman catholic you are counted as one by the church and this adds to their perceived power. Faith = willful ignorance
• Are FPPs recruiting converts to a specific belief system acceptable? There may be some Jehovah's Witnesses out there who may want to take advantage of this policy. Are FPPs criticizing a specific religion acceptable? There may be folks out there that have a lot to say about the Jews who may want to take advantage of this policy.
• Let the masses decide via social sanction.
• These carebears need to stop bitching about every other fucking post. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE POST JUST CLICK THE BACK BUTTON AND MOVE ON WITH YOUR INSIGNIFICANT LITTLE LIVES PLEASE, THANK YOU. . . . or raise a valid objection. Dealer's choice. I think this post is fine, I'm just saying it came up earlier today and is interesting in and of itself. Maybe deserving of an FPP. :)
• i think rocket88 raised two good ones. Also, how do smurfs, Strawberry Shortcake, and My little Pony feel about this issue?
• rocket88 needs to define 'recruit' & 'criticize'.
• Are FPPs criticizing a specific religion acceptable? There may be folks out there that have a lot to say about the Jews who may want to take advantage of this policy. I'll take advantage right now. I think Judaism is just as silly as Roman Catholicism. But those little round hats are kinda cute. Gotta get me one for burning man.
• "the hows and whys of blowing off the church." Wow, I thought there was a new edict or something. I would have admired the honesty.
• Does anyone seriously believe this post is designed to recruit people into atheism? And, if so, that this post is actually capable making a single covert? It's a completely ridiculous statement to imply that this post can, will, and intends on gaining converts to atheism, or to any other religion. That being said, damn near every post is tailored to a "specific belief system". Today alone, there have been two posts tailored to the "nature is beautiful" belief system, one for the "mass executions are bad" belief system, one for the "cults are strange" belief system. Also, what have you got against Jehovah Witness's? You phrased that sentence like we are supposed to be scared of JW's. I am not threatened by the idea that a JW may make a post tailored to a JW belief system. I'd welcome a post like that actually, but I'm not some sort of culturephobe.
• My own feeling is that the post would have been better if it had given us something to discuss. I read both links. One is an athiest laying out his beliefs. The other is a catholic explaining his take on recent events. The two seem to touch only tangentially. We really don't have a reason to criticize what either has done. We may disagree, but we've heard the arguments before from both those sides And why are we getting angry over someone else's belief system. "Faith = willfull ignorance"? As Mr.K points out, as extended by me, each of us has a belief system, which is probably, in some definition, a "faith."
• "Tangentially"? Sullivan is appalled at the choice for the new pope. He's getting advice to leave the church (which he says he doesn't want to do.) The other link gives reasons and methods for leaving said church. And who said that equating faith with willful ignorance is anger?
• If it isn't anger, what is it? Anger might be better than the alternatives.
• Oh, sorry, should have addressed the other points. Sullivan isn't saying he's an atheist or wants to be excommunicated. He is going through some soul searching, and it is a very emotional crisis. As for the other guy, the question that occurs to me is, if you want to leave, why not just leave? It isn't really necessary to be excommunicated. That might be a statement that Sullivan doesn't want to make. Again, the connection seems tenuous to me. Plus, what is there to discuss her besides our won opinions?
• Well, they probably are hard "won."
• OK forget I mentioned it. I had a long response typed out but I deleted it. I'm tired of this shit.
• Ok I admit I have some anger about my parents baptising me as Catholic (I don't like anybody making decisons for me or telling me what to do), but I challenge you to tell me how faith is not willful ignorance.
• I think 'willful ignorance' implies that there is an awareness of an alternative to the 'reality' that the deeply religious are sort of ignoring. That may be true of some religious people, particularly some 'born again' who imho rejecting things they can't handle, but many people brought up in a evangelical or strict religious culture have never examined alternative viewpoints. Opium of the masses for some, tiny anthropomorphic view of the universe for others.
• I am still waiting for the rational arguments against the (Roman Catholic) church being "misogynistic", "homophobic", and "antidemocratic, authoritarian and intolerant" (quote from teh article). If there is no answer - rational answer, not "God likes it that way" answers - then I think that converting people to things that aren't "misogynistic", "homophobic", and "antidemocratic, authoritarian and intolerant" is a Good Thing.
• Converting someone is always a bad thing. You can't convert people, they have to come to realisations themselves.
• Oh. I was hoping for St. Olav's strategy of beheading those who refused.
• i know someone who wrote several times in the late 1980s to his local rc archbishop requesting excommunication. he never received a reply.
• What Chyren said. Also: faith != blind faith blind faith = willful ignorance therefore: faith != willful ignorance
• Ok, Skrik, I don't mind playing "Ratzinger's Advocate" here, so long as it's quite clear that I am in fact an atheist with no affection for Catholicism. *Writhes unattractively and takes the form of an elderly german priest* The Pope would say that far from hating women, the Church glorifies and celebrates them, most especially in the form of Our Lady, the only member of the human race without sin. The fact that women can't be priests is simply on a par with the fact that men can't be mothers - you can rail against the injustice of it if you like, but it won't make any difference. As for homophobia (fear of homos?) - is it fear and aversion to want to save someone from imperilling their immortal soul? God loves gay people as much as anyone else - they suffer special temptations and special burdens, but that's no dishonour - so did Jesus. Antidemocratic, authoritarian? The majority is not always right. Would you decide scientific truth by an opinion poll? If not, why decide your religion democratically? If the majority in some state wanted to teach creation science, you'd appeal to the undemocratic authority of scientists without a second thought. Intolerant? I hope it can be said of me that there are things I will not tolerate, but perhaps you don't share that aspiration. There are not, as popular belief would have it, hundreds of equally 'valid' forms of 'spirituality' - there is one narrow path to salvation, which runs hard alongside the short and easy walk to eternal damnation. Allowing the flock to wander from that path is no kindness. *Shivers, and resumes normal form* I find this stuff as incredible as anyone, but I don't think it's insincere. You have to accept that it's perfectly possible to be intelligent, thoughtful, and a rigorously orthodox Catholic. NB - for the avoidance of doubt, none of the sentiments expressed in italics are those of Plegmund or any of his avatars, associates, or sock puppets.
• /applause
• I'm as atheistic as anybody here, but the whole "faith = willful ignorance" maxim is simplistic, tired, and simply untrue. I have some very intelligent, rational, passionate friends who have arrived at religious faith through years of soul-searching, questioning, and considering alternatives. To reduce that kind of self-discovery to "willful ignorance" just because you believe differently is simply willful ignorance on your part to the fact that people might have actually given this whole religion thing some thought before jumping the Jesus train. Even theologians (at least those of the Renaissance period) knew that blind faith was a bad thing, and that real faith should come from soul searching. (I think Voltaire had something about the blind faithful, or maybe it was Dante...) And I won't dispute that many of the faithful do not do any searching before jumping in with both feet. But obviously some atheists just start slamming the stupid xtians because it's the hip and cool thing to do and not because of any soul searching or deep thought. Blind non-faith is just the flip side of the same coin. Don't swallow atheism just because someone gives it do you in easy-to-take caplet form. Arrive at it or at faith through self examination. What I say. 2¢
• I think it was mentioned above but my argument against the faith = willful ignorance position is that the definition of ignorance: ig·no·rance n. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed. Would imply that faith equals an unawareness . . of what? Faith is the result of belief in unknowable truth, so how can anyone be aware of something unknowable? If you're saying faith = ignorance of gay rights or whatever, okay but in general I think its a bad argument.
• Plegmund, you just freaked me out. That ruled. ...they suffer special temptations and special burdens, but that's no dishonour - so did Jesus. I don't think pope would say that Jesus suffered temptation, though. He would have to be capable of weakness and sinning, otherwise you couldn't honestly call it temptation. I've never heard a true believer willing to accept an imperfect christ, and I'm confident that the pope would consider it blasphemy to say Jesus had the capacity for sinning. This doesn't hurt your (the pope's) argument, though, as you could easily substitute Moses, Abraham, Noah, etc... Antidemocratic, authoritarian? The majority is not always right... I would say the pope is creating a false dichtomy in this paragraph. Just because I don't want the masses determining my religious beliefs doesn't mean I want just one guy to do it. And in fact, if those were the only to possibilities (and they're not), I would rather the masses. Yes, the masses are capable of mistakes, but so is one man, and the masses as a whole aren't capable of succumbing to greed, lust for power, and other factors that can and will influence one man.
• yeah the whole temptations by the devil in the desert thing? I think that's the comparison.
• I've never heard a true believer willing to accept an imperfect christ, and I'm confident that the pope would consider it blasphemy to say Jesus had the capacity for sinning. Personally I would find it much more inspiring if Jesus did have the capacity for sinning, just like any normal man, but because of his spirituality CHOSE not to. That would imply that you don't have to be a godlike superbeing to do the right thing--you just have to have the will and the courage. That's way more inspiring. But we're veering dangerously close to the "Who's Braver: Superman or Batman" argument...which religous point always ends up in fire and purges.
• He would have to be capable of weakness and sinning, otherwise you couldn't honestly call it temptation. I don't know the Bible all that well, but did Christ not suffer a moment of weakness in Gethesemane? And also, during his cruxificion, did he not doubt, and asked God why He had abandoned Christ? Surely these are temptations that Christ had fallen to?
• It isn't whether Batman is braver than Superman, it's whether he's smarter. Don't try and tempt us believers with your heathen impure thoughts.
• Dear Fr Plegmund, I was hoping for a rational apology of the Church's stance on these matters. What you so graciously provided was a reiteration of said stance. Yours faithfully, Skrik
• "Surely these are temptations that Christ had fallen to?" He didn't fall to them, according to adherents. He was prey to temptation, but unlike mortal man, he was not weak enough to give in. So the story goes. And it depends on which interpretation of scripture you follow. I believe there's a bit of argument over this kind of stuff. ;)
• Well OBVIOUSLY he's smarter. He has to be. He doesn't have the option of just hitting the mountainside at mach 3 and swimming in magma till the volcano stops erupting, without even messing up his hair. I'm talking about Jesus, obviously.
• Arse! Feck! Drink! NUNS!! Reverse! Reverse!
• Thank you, Mr K. Surely Jesus was subject to temptation by the Devil on at least one famous occasion; and while his Divine half must have been perfect, he also had a human half which could not have been? You may be right, however - my theology is pretty ropey, and I'm reluctant to go through the necessary writhing to find out what that other chap might say (my joints are not what they were). You could indeed substitute someone else - as a matter of fact, you could substitute 'priests', though I don't suppose the Pope would find that an attractive comparison. the masses as a whole aren't capable of succumbing to greed, lust for power, and other factors that can and will influence one man. I think you're optimistic - but that's another argument.
• If Jesus is a Superhero, who is his sidekick? Judas-boy?
• I don't think pope would say that Jesus suffered temptation, though. He would have to be capable of weakness and sinning, otherwise you couldn't honestly call it temptation. I've never heard a true believer willing to accept an imperfect christ, and I'm confident that the pope would consider it blasphemy to say Jesus had the capacity for sinning If Jesus was incapable of sinning, why did the devil bother trying to tempt him? And who says being suseptable to temptation is identical to imperfection? It's sin that's evil, in the Church's metaphysics, not temptation. I'm going to stop right now, lest I am held responsible for converting someone.
• "..while his Divine half must have been perfect, he also had a human half which could not have been?" You realise that these are dangerous questions that could lead you into mortal sin, my son? You should stop thinking such things and pray for forgiveness!
• Then the devil took Jesus up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the ice-cream of the world in its magnificence, and he said to him, "All this I shall give to you, if you will prostrate yourself and worship me." But Jesus said to him, "Get away, Satan! It is written: "Do not abandon the Lord your God for any kind of dessert or other confectionary treat, nay, not even for a kit-kat or Mars bar". And Satan said "Wait a minute, I’m supposed to be tempting you in the desert, not with a dessert". And Jesus said "Oh right sorry".
• I also want to note that orthodox doctrine is that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. New Pope condemns Spain gay bill Not homophobic?
• I'm sorry, I'm honestly unfamiliar with this famous occasion that everyone else seems to know. I'll have to read it. the masses as a whole aren't capable of succumbing to greed, lust for power, and other factors that can and will influence one man. I think you're optimistic - but that's another argument. I dig what your saying here, but I can't tell if you dig what I'm saying. The key words being "as a whole". You can't have a hungry ant colony, as a whole, even if each ant in it is hungry. This analogy is going to run thin pretty quick actually, since ants operate with a colony mind, unlike humans. There's selfish desires that a man can possess, or that many men can possess, or even ALL men. But these desires fail to get transfered to the mass, as a whole, because of their basis in selfishness. Self-serving desires of an individual, by their very nature, cannot get transfered on to a mass. For a mass to possess self-serving motives, the individuals inside the mass must have the opposite: communal desires. TP: I would agree that Batman's much braver. But I think the majority of worshippers aren't looking for human they can identify with, like Batman, but someone beyond human they can exalt, like Superman. (The Batchurch is the exception to this, obviously) Of course, most DC heroes are beyond human, anyway. X-men, Spiderman, Hulk, etc... All Marvel characters are way more human than Batman. I'm way more inspired watching the Hulk make a good decision than by watching Batman make the same.
• Oh, I getcha, Mr. K. Besides, Batman may be human, but he's also one of the richest sociopaths in the country. So while you can identify with him more than with Supe, he's still able to buy pretty much anything he wants, which is close to godlike. Me, I'll stick to the Adventures of Hobo-Man!
• orthodox doctrine is that Jesus was both fully God and fully man Well said, good soul! Away with those foul unorthodoxies - that Christ was half man, half ping-pong ball; that he was fully man, fully woman and fully an electric toothbrush; and - O doctrine most vile! - that he was three parts gin and one vermouth.
• Quid, you're a funny mofo. Keep the dose right where it is. Luke 4:1-13 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert, [2] where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry. [3] The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread." [4] Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone.'" [5] The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. [6] And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. [7] So if you worship me, it will all be yours." [8] Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'" [9] The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down from here. [10] For it is written: " 'He will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully; [11] they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.' " [12] Jesus answered, "It says: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" [13] When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time. Personally, I fail to see what this has to do . . with . . .umm . . nevermind.
• Holy crap that story totally explains something to me. There's a type of person that, when having a theological discusion with him/her, will respond with bible quotes instead of counterpoints. I always thought this type of person was thick-headed and "willfully ignorant", but it's not that. They actually think that the devil is acting through you, and by using the same methods as Jesus (or feeble attempts of this) that makes them a little like Jesus. Wow. I've been enlightened a little. Thank you, Holy Bible.
• Jesus is just all right with me.
• This looks like a good place to post the nonist activity book. *has a phobia of posting FPPs*
• Keep the dose right where it is Heh. To whit I am reminded of an interesting aphorism I read today - which I think has some relevance by analogy: "A gentleman need not speak latin: but he should, at least, have forgotten it." ;)
• Oh! I thought that said the onanist activity book. Heh. that's a different one.
• My soul's up for grabs. Worn, but still viable.
• I only read the onanist activity book for the articles.
• If Jesus is half man and half God, which category did his cock fall into?
• give it up for the God cock! (actually, i don't think you get to choose)
• But many of those suposedly super-human super-heroes are most interesting when they prove to all too much like regular humans - prey to angst, worry, character flaws, etc. Wolverine comes to mind; even Superman had the weakness of love. Without these weaknesses, they would be incredibly boring characters.