What politicians need to understand about the Crucifixion

smacl

realitykeeper wrote: »

It is the job of politicians to serve society but of course they don`t do that. They serve themselves. In recent times it has become popular to criticize the church so they do. In the past it wasn`t so they didn`t.

Agreed, more importantly from the politicians point of view, the church has far less influence over the voting public and hence far less sway with politicians. All for the good in my opinion.

The disconnect between society and the church is not really the issue. The connection between God and mankind is what matters. The church is right not to bend to the will of a society that would rather use a church as a night club than a place of prayer.

I'd question the value of a church that isn't strongly connected to society if it wishes to influence that society. I'm currently looking at the exit poll on the referendum and it has some interesting stats independent of the main question asked. What we see is about 30%-44% of the voting population are regular church goers while 78% identify as religious. I'd guess that if the Catholic church remains entrenched in dogma we'll soon see a generation that simply stops identifying as religious at all. Where do you place the 56% of the population that don't go to a church, and why not use a church as a nightclub if it has ceased being a place of worship?

realitykeeper

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, more importantly from the politicians point of view, the church has far less influence over the voting public and hence far less sway with politicians. All for the good in my opinion.



I'd question the value of a church that isn't strongly connected to society if it wishes to influence that society. I'm currently looking at the exit poll on the referendum and it has some interesting stats independent of the main question asked. What we see is about 30%-44% of the voting population are regular church goers while 78% identify as religious. I'd guess that if the Catholic church remains entrenched in dogma we'll soon see a generation that simply stops identifying as religious at all. Where do you place the 56% of the population that don't go to a church, and why not use a church as a nightclub if it has ceased being a place of worship?

The decline in religiosity tends to couple with a rise in leftism. Communism will bring misery to those who think they want it and when the people have suffered sufficiently, the survivors will return to God. History is full of incredible turns of fate. Do you think capitalism in the west could survive the sort of economic implosion that would dwarf the credit crunch of 2008? I don`t, but that is what I think will happen before the end of this decade. It would certainly make an interesting chapter in the history books for future generations. Within 30 years of the collapse of Communism, Capitalism collapses in the west.

Is it a co-incidence that in the lead up to this event, the west becomes such a comradely place where women finally achieve equality and where genders proliferate and all are treated the same (except they each get their own public toilet)?

Is it a coincidence that China has spent trillions building ghost cities where nobody lives, as though they were anticipating the economic implosion of the American and European economies?

As a religiously minded person, everything I see points to a great comeuppance for this world and Ireland will be at the forefront of that. Ironically, people will blame the church for the failures of the politicians but lest we forget, hell fire awaits all who do not abide by the will of God. Society and democratic desires will count for little on judgement day where individual accountability applies.

Anthracite

realitykeeper wrote: »

So, even though I was born nearly 2000 years after the event, I was the cause of Christ`s suffering, as was all of humanity.

Well, as the guy who invented the universe, plus suffering, sin, souls, and us, I think more of the blame rests on God's shoulders to be honest.

realitykeeper

Anthracite wrote: »

Well, as the guy who invented the universe, plus suffering, sin, souls, and us, I think more of the blame rests on God's shoulders to be honest.

Nope. You see, God also gave us free will. Thanks to the mercy of God, the righteous will have mercy shown to them. The unrepentant on the other hand will get what they have chosen.

Anthracite

realitykeeper wrote: »

Nope. You see, God also gave us free will. Thanks to the mercy of God, the righteous will have mercy shown to them. The unrepentant on the other hand will get what they have chosen.

God gave us free will, exactly. If you give your child the keys to the car, don't be surprised if they crash it.

You don't send the child to hell for it - anyone in their right mind would blame you as the parent.

smacl

realitykeeper wrote: »

The decline in religiosity tends to couple with a rise in leftism.

Nope. If you look at religiosity by country, you'll note for example that religion is more important in Russia than in the UK. Religion actually correlates more closely with poverty, where people who have very little can at least look forward to a better promised next life. Hard to find anyone more apt than Marx here "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

Is it a co-incidence that in the lead up to this event, the west becomes such a comradely place where women finally achieve equality and where genders proliferate and all are treated the same (except they each get their own public toilet)?

With respect, in my opinion using religion as an excuse for misogyny and gender discrimination would be considered entirely unacceptably by most Christians in this country and by very many members of the clergy as well.

As a religiously minded person, everything I see points to a great comeuppance for this world and Ireland will be at the forefront of that. Ironically, people will blame the church for the failures of the politicians but lest we forget, hell fire awaits all who do not abide by the will of God. Society and democratic desires will count for little on judgement day where individual accountability applies.

So you're predicting a future apocalyptic event on the basis that your moral compass is in line with that of your God? Nothing new there, religious people bearing placards that 'the end is nigh' were common enough at one point to be a stereotype. Not so much now, given the number of times the apocalypse has been put off.

Purely speculation, but I reckon that many of the Christians who have stopped attending their churches have done so because they essentially believe in a Christianity that is rooted in compassion first and foremost which will always be left leaning and favour people over dogma.

realitykeeper

Anthracite wrote: »

God gave us free will, exactly. If you give your child the keys to the car, don't be surprised if they crash it.

You don't send the child to hell for it - anyone in their right mind would blame you as the parent.

God does not send people to hell. People choose hell by rejecting God. People are clever enough to master space travel so it is hardly unreasonable to expect them to master basic wisdom.

realitykeeper

smacl wrote: »

Nope. If you look at religiosity by country, you'll note for example that religion is more important in Russia than in the UK.

I don`t have to look, I knew that already and it proves what I just said. As religiosity decreases, leftism tends to increase.

smacl wrote: »

Religion actually correlates more closely with poverty, where people who have very little can at least look forward to a better promised next life. Hard to find anyone more apt than Marx here "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

There is a lag factor between cause and effect. Everything seems fine in an economy until it crashes. The benefits of religiosity take time to accumulate and the wages of sin often come late. Interesting you should mention Marx. The only reason the Soviet Union belatedly allowed people to return to religion was because the soviet system had nothing to offer and they figured religion would at least offer hope, and that was for their atheist perspective. To the believers, it offered infinitely more.

smacl wrote: »

With respect, in my opinion using religion as an excuse for misogyny and gender discrimination would be considered entirely unacceptably by most Christians in this country and by very many members of the clergy as well.

Myself included. The point I am making is that applied equality is a symptom of socialism which is an unsustainable economic model. Misogyny and gender discrimination are wrong and should never have happened but as in any jigsaw, the pieces have to fit and if you try forcing mismatched pieces to comply with your Utopian vision, you get a mess.

smacl wrote: »

I reckon that many of the Christians who have stopped attending their churches have done so because they essentially believe in a Christianity that is rooted in compassion first and foremost which will always be left leaning and favour people over dogma.

Perhaps but as you know, people are sinners. In any case, God will be the final arbiter in these matters.

Anthracite

realitykeeper wrote: »

God does not send people to hell. People choose hell by rejecting God. People are clever enough to master space travel so it is hardly unreasonable to expect them to master basic wisdom.

Clearly most people are incapable of mastering basic wisdom. Again, isn't this really the fault of who or whatever made them mostly incapable?

If the nails you buy aren't up to the job of holding your house together, you don't blame the nails, you blame the people who made the nails.

Nick Park

Anthracite wrote: »

Clearly most people are incapable of mastering basic wisdom. Again, isn't this really the fault of who or whatever made them mostly incapable?

There's a world of difference between being incapable of mastering basic wisdom and choosing not to.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

There's a world of difference between being incapable of mastering basic wisdom and choosing not to.

Perhaps making sensible choices requires a modicum of wisdom

realitykeeper

Anthracite wrote: »

Clearly most people are incapable of mastering basic wisdom. Again, isn't this really the fault of who or whatever made them mostly incapable?

If the nails you buy aren't up to the job of holding your house together, you don't blame the nails, you blame the people who made the nails.

Ah but you forget even a small child can master basic wisdom and people invariably get even wiser with age. So why do they ignore their own wise council and choose to be foolish you may ask. Simple, they are blinded by the 7 deadly sins. The devil is the source of much of the confused thinking in this world but at the end of the day, people choose their own destiny.

People must take responsibility.

Anthracite

realitykeeper wrote: »

Ah but you forget even a small child can master basic wisdom and people invariably get even wiser with age. So why do they ignore their own wise council and choose to be foolish you may ask. Simple, they are blinded by the 7 deadly sins. The devil is the source of much of the confused thinking in this world but at the end of the day, people choose their own destiny.

People must take responsibility.

Well firstly I would dispute your notion that there is such things as 'basic' wisdom.

What is basic wisdom? How is someone to know that what you call basic wisdom is actually wise?

Finally, and most importantly, if we are prone to making bad choices, who made us that way? Who made us in such a way that it's so hard to 1. see and 2. make the correct choices?

We come back to the child given the car keys by a parent. Sure, the child has free will. Do we blame the child for crashing the car?

Nick Park

Anthracite wrote: »

We come back to the child given the car keys by a parent. Sure, the child has free will. Do we blame the child for crashing the car?

If the child is of a legal driving age, then, no, the parent is not to blame for the car crash. If your child, being old enough to drive, chooses to ignore basic instructions, drives too fast, and then crashes, of course we blame the child rather than blaming you as a parent.

Of course, you could prevent your child from ever hurting themselves by falling off a bike, crashing a car, or overdosing on drugs. All you have to do is keep them under lock and key all the time. But most of us, as parents, see it as more loving to give our children freedom as they grow - even with the risk that entails.

realitykeeper

Anthracite wrote: »

Well firstly I would dispute your notion that there is such things as 'basic' wisdom.

What is basic wisdom? How is someone to know that what you call basic wisdom is actually wise?

Finally, and most importantly, if we are prone to making bad choices, who made us that way? Who made us in such a way that it's so hard to 1. see and 2. make the correct choices?

We come back to the child given the car keys by a parent. Sure, the child has free will. Do we blame the child for crashing the car?

Basic wisdom overlaps with common morality e.g. stealing is both unwise and immoral. You know this because your childhood guardian told you but there are other sources of wisdom e.g. the book of Proverbs. Other books which enrich one`s wisdom can be found in any good bookshop.

You are not prone to making bad choices. You are prone to temptation which is why God gave you will power. If something tempts you, just use your will power to resist. Simple.

The child has not reached the age of reason but you have, so no excuse will do.

Cabaal

Anthracite wrote: »

We come back to the child given the car keys by a parent. Sure, the child has free will. Do we blame the child for crashing the car?

Didn't you read above?
we blame the devil apparently

Cabaal

realitykeeper wrote: »

The child has not reached the age of reason but you have, so no excuse will do.

How do you decide the age of reason exactly?

Is it 18 or some other number society just picks? In Japan it could be 21 for example. If you go by the age of sexual consent then in many country's its 15 or 16, until 2011 or so it was 12 in the Vatican for example.

So what age is the age of reason?

realitykeeper

Cabaal wrote: »

How do you decide the age of reason exactly?

Is it 18 or some other number society just picks? In Japan it could be 21 for example. If you go by the age of sexual consent then in many country's its 15 or 16, until 2011 or so it was 12 in the Vatican for example.

So what age is the age of reason?

For most kids, about 4. Well before they make their first Holy Communion. You see, you don`t have to be 18 to know that stealing, for example, is wrong.

Nick Park

Cabaal wrote: »

If you go by the age of sexual consent ... until 2011 or so it was 12 in the Vatican for example.

A nice Catholic bashing headline figure, but not actually correct.

In the Vatican, local laws are overruled by canon law. Canon law states that all sex outside of marriage is illicit, and that marriage cannot be contracted before the age of 14 (for females) or 16 (for males).

Therefore, prior to 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 14 for girls and 16 for boys.

Sorry to debunk a popular atheist urban legend.

Anthracite

Nick Park wrote: »

There's a world of difference between being incapable of mastering basic wisdom and choosing not to.

Here's the bit where your argument falls down Nick: you are saying they make a bad choice. I agree. They lack the wisdom to make a good choice.

Whose fault is that?

Anthracite

realitykeeper wrote: »

Ah but you forget even a small child can master basic wisdom and people invariably get even wiser with age. So why do they ignore their own wise council and choose to be foolish you may ask. Simple, they are blinded by the 7 deadly sins. The devil is the source of much of the confused thinking in this world but at the end of the day, people choose their own destiny.

People must take responsibility.

Who created the 7 deadly sins?

Nick Park

Anthracite wrote: »

Here's the bit where your argument falls down Nick: you are saying they make a bad choice. I agree. They lack the wisdom to make a good choice.

Whose fault is that?

If you believe in free will, rather than determinism, then it is their fault that they lack wisdom. According to the New Testament (and this is the Christianity Forum, after all) if you lack wisdom, then all you have to do is ask for it.

Nick Park

Anthracite wrote: »

Who created the 7 deadly sins?

Evagrius Ponticus usually gets the credit. One of those 4th Century desert fathers, anyway.

Anthracite

Nick Park wrote: »

If you believe in free will, rather than determinism, then it is their fault that they lack wisdom. According to the New Testament (and this is the Christianity Forum, after all) if you lack wisdom, then all you have to do is ask for it.

So...Asking for wisdom is the wise thing to do?

Do you see the problem here?

Anthracite

Nick Park wrote: »

Evagrius Ponticus usually gets the credit. One of those 4th Century desert fathers, anyway.

And who created the concept of sin?

Nick Park

Anthracite wrote: »

So...Asking for wisdom is the wise thing to do?

Do you see the problem here?

I see two problems here.

1. You are creating a false dichotomy, as if the only options were having no wisdom, or having perfect wisdom so as to always do the right thing. In reality, of course, we all have a measure of wisdom.

2. You are engaging in sophistry, arguing a position that you don't really believe. You don't really believe that people are not accountable for their poor choices, due to their innate lack of wisdom.

Let me ask you a question. An authority figure sexually abuses a child in their care. Should they be held accountable for their actions? Or do we just say, "ah, sure, it's not their fault that they don't have enough wisdom to make better choices"?

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

An authority figure sexually abuses a child in their care. Should they be held accountable for their actions? Or do we just say, "ah, sure, it's not their fault that they don't have enough wisdom to make better choices"?

Nah, just move him to a different parish

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Nah, just move him to a different parish

As a non-Catholic, I agree. Or move him to a different school, or a different football club, or a different swimming club.

Either way, those who moved paedophiles around and let them continue are only culpable if we accept that we bear moral responsibility for our own actions, rather than bleating that we can't help ourselves because a big bad God never gave us enough wisdom to make better choices.

And this demonstrates how blind dogmatic faith, even of the atheist variety, ends up dropping its adherents into logical and philosophical crap. Someone wants to attack the concept of God, so they argue against free will, create an argument that we bear no moral responsibility for our actions because we weren't given enough wisdom, and end up absolving paedophiles and their enablers from any culpability. Priceless.

Cabaal

realitykeeper wrote: »

For most kids, about 4. Well before they make their first Holy Communion. You see, you don`t have to be 18 to know that stealing, for example, is wrong.

4? so everyone would know all this around 4 years of age?

Anthracite

Nick Park wrote: »

I see two problems here.

1. You are creating a false dichotomy, as if the only options were having no wisdom, or having perfect wisdom so as to always do the right thing. In reality, of course, we all have a measure of wisdom.

2. You are engaging in sophistry, arguing a position that you don't really believe. You don't really believe that people are not accountable for their poor choices, due to their innate lack of wisdom.

Nonsense. The false dichotomy is saying that people should be wise, though not made wise, or go to hell.

Nick Park wrote: »

Let me ask you a question. An authority figure sexually abuses a child in their care. Should they be held accountable for their actions? Or do we just say, "ah, sure, it's not their fault that they don't have enough wisdom to make better choices"?

Unlike the Catholic Church, I believe people in authority should be punished for their crimes. Other posters believe that God created sexuality, sin, temptation, the whole shebang - in which case, who is to blame, the sinner, or the creator of sin?

realitykeeper

Cabaal wrote: »

4? so everyone would know all this around 4 years of age?

Yes by 4, people know the basic differences between right and wrong. You know there is an interesting flaw in the human condition. Knowledge tends to accumulate over the generations but human wisdom does not seem to accumulate. This makes wisdom relatively easy to master, it is a simple subject but also the most underrated which is why mistakes are repeated again and again by each generation. By contrast, the wheel only had to be invented once.

antiskeptic

Anthracite wrote: »

Nonsense. The false dichotomy is saying that people should be wise, though not made wise, or go to hell.

I think the idea is that people are equipped with enough wisdom (intrinsically and through watching their own and others experiences in exercising choice) to understand the directions they are going in. And to have a choice whether to seek to alter course. The terminus' for both options being heaven and hell.

Other posters believe that God created sexuality, sin, temptation, the whole shebang - in which case, who is to blame, the sinner, or the creator of sin?

I don't the posters who believe that God created sin, temptation (unto sin) are Christians. Certainly God created an environment where own will could bring about these things but that's a different, one-step-removed kind of responsiblity.