Another Question For Christians

[Girchuck]

An ideology can be used as a tool to motivate a bunch of people to kill another bunch of people. Your religion is not immune from being used as a tool of powerhungry people who want to have even more power. Why are there so very few Christian theocracies today, while 600 years ago they were commonplace? Maybe people in christian nations were tired of killing each other because of small theological differences, and agreed that the best chance of avoiding this was to let the secular government resolve people's differences of religious opinion or even let them to "agree to disagree." They tried it in Netherland and Switzerland, and it worked great, so the idea spread. Fortunately for christian religion, it was no longer able to instigate mass internecine warfare when the really powerful killing technologies became available. Thats why Stalin and Pol Pot scored a lot more than the Spanish Inquisition.

[NotReady]

I in no way support theocracy. Neither does the Bible.

[beset7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

[/ QUOTE ]
Two clauses in this sentence are contradictory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read out of historical context and from a bad protestant translation it is. In the greek that they have translated to "sin and blashpemy" it is quite clear he is referring to violations of Torah law that the pharisees were obsessed with. A better translation and good historical understanding of this particular passage makes it clear that the gospel writer is referring to Jesus' repeated teaching that it is not the outward following of dogma and cultic religious practices that brings salvation but the holy spirit, or inner sanctity.

[beset7]

[ QUOTE ]


So what happens to infants who die?

Umm....

[/ QUOTE ]

Limbo. Not that I really believe this but that's the traditional theological notion. The summa theologica by Aquinas talks about it. Just like purgatory it's not very popular with modern theologians.

[beset7]

Am I the only one that has noticed that most of David's posts, with the welcomed exception of a few posts in Poker Theory, either relate to (a) God (b) himself? I find this much more interesting psychologically these retarded rhetorical questions that a 13 year old wanna-be atheist would might ask to piss his fundamentalist Christian dad off at the dinner table.

This is well-trodden ground. Go finish your college degree and take some philosophy and theology courses if you really give a damn. Otherwise, STFU.

[David Sklansky]

"This is well-trodden ground. Go finish your college degree and take some philosophy and theology courses if you really give a damn. Otherwise, STFU."

But I don't give a damn about theology. It is virtually inconceivable to me that any of the present religions have it right. What interests me is the psychological makeup of those people who are smart enough to understand logic and science while simultaneously thinking that the evidence for their own religion is stong enough so that an intelligent, objective, unemotional observer would deem the probability they are right, to be over 50%.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
But I don't give a damn about theology. It is virtually inconceivable to me that any of the present religions have it right. What interests me is the psychological makeup of those people who are smart enough to understand logic and science while simultaneously thinking that the evidence for their own religion is stong enough so that an intelligent, objective, unemotional observer would deem the probability they are right, to be over 50%.

[/ QUOTE ]
People simply do not apply logic and reason to their belief in religon so I think your assumption that they feel their evidence is strong enough for an unemotional observer to believe is faulty. People simply do not care if it's true or not as they are not seeking truth. They are only seeking comfort.

Science searches for truth. Religon does not. When science finds truth it celebrates it. Religon acts violently to truth.

btw - theology can be fascinating when it is rigorously applied to physics. I am not talking about the stupid crap that religon throws at us. Rather, there are still a million questions that science cannot answer. What does the start of time mean? Why was there even a big bang in the first place. Where did matter come from? How could it exist out of nothing? etc. The questions are mind boggling and science hasnt even begun to address these questions.

[beset7]

[ QUOTE ]

But I don't give a damn about theology. It is virtually inconceivable to me that any of the present religions have it right. What interests me is the psychological makeup of those people who are smart enough to understand logic and science while simultaneously thinking that the evidence for their own religion is stong enough so that an intelligent, objective, unemotional observer would deem the probability they are right, to be over 50%.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you are interested in has become increasingly clear. But the following:

[ QUOTE ]
But what about those who are not sure one way or the other? More precisely what about those who believe that there is only a pretty good possibility that there is such a god out there? (Some of those people will not admit their serious doubts for Pascal Wager reasons. But they still have them.) Are they subjected to the same punishments as out and out non believers?

[/ QUOTE ]

IS a theological question. It may be a rhetorical one but it is still essentially a theological question. Since it is rhetorical, and therefore designed to produce an effect rather then elicit any kind of reply or answer, is it appropriate to your inquiry into the psyche of intelligent religous people? Maybe I'm just not following your technique but it's getting old.

I attended Jesuit schools all the way through university and law school; I've had to take more theology and philosophy then I care to remember. The fact is, that many theologians I respect and have learned a lot from do not believe "the evidence for their own religion is stong enough so that an intelligent, objective, unemotional observer would deem the probability they are right, to be over 50%." In contrast, they believe their faith to be by it's very nature absurd and that from this well-spring of mystery and ambiguity comes much of the power of faith (think Kierkegard [Protestant], Karl Rahner [Catholic] Martin Buber [Jewish]).

But I'm assuming you are not concerned with these people, only the apologists who insists there faith can be proved/strongly supported by objective evidence/logic and is a reasonable propisition. I just don't think the best way to get at their psychological makeup is to ask rhetorical theological questions about eschatological punishments. Just my opinion and as I've said before I think sociological concerns are as much a factor as psychological ones. JMO.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But I don't give a damn about theology.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why wouldn't you be interested in theology if there are people "who are smart enough to understand logic and science while simultaneously thinking that the evidence for their own religion is stong enough so that an intelligent, objective, unemotional observer would deem the probability they are right, to be over 50%."?

If they're right and you've ignored it, what excuse can you offer for being wilfully ignorant?

[David Sklansky]

Because I am sure they are not applying their smarts to this subject.