Religion, what's the point?

ctp said:
That would completely defeat the point of religion though, wouldn't it? If you could prove a god existed you wouldn't need faith, which is what religion is all about.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And that is why religion is redundant. And that is why I said religion is opium for the mind. And that is what Oates and I eventually "discussed".
 
In absurdist philosophy, the Absurd arises out of the fundamental disharmony between the individual's search for meaning and themeaninglessness of the universe. As beings looking for meaning in a meaningless world, humans have three ways of resolving the dilemma. Kierkegaard and Camus describe the solutions in their works, The Sickness Unto Death (1849) and The Myth of Sisyphus (1942), respectively:

  • Suicide (or, "escaping existence"): a solution in which a person ends one's own life. Both Kierkegaard and Camus dismiss the viability of this option. Camus states that it does not counter the Absurd. Rather, the act of ending one's existence only becomes more absurd.
  • Religious, spiritual, or abstract belief in a transcendent realm, being, or idea: a solution in which one believes in the existence of a reality that is beyond the Absurd, and, as such, has meaning. Kierkegaard stated that a belief in anything beyond the Absurd requires a non-rational but perhaps necessary religious acceptance in such an intangible and empirically unprovable thing (now commonly referred to as a "leap of faith"). However, Camus regarded this solution, and others, as "philosophical suicide".
  • Acceptance of the Absurd: a solution in which one accepts the Absurd and continues to live in spite of it. Camus endorsed this solution, believing that by accepting the Absurd, one can achieve absolute freedom, and that by recognizing no religious or other moral constraints and by revolting against the Absurd while simultaneously accepting it as unstoppable, one could possibly be content from the personal meaning constructed in the process. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, regarded this solution as "demoniac madness": "He rages most of all at the thought that eternity might get it into its head to take his misery from him!
Let us all pick one and stop bothering eachother in this monstrous thread.

 
FortBoyard said:
In absurdist philosophy, the Absurd arises out of the fundamental disharmony between the individual's search for meaning and themeaninglessness of the universe. As beings looking for meaning in a meaningless world, humans have three ways of resolving the dilemma. Kierkegaard and Camus describe the solutions in their works, The Sickness Unto Death (1849) and The Myth of Sisyphus (1942), respectively:

  • Suicide (or, "escaping existence"): a solution in which a person ends one's own life. Both Kierkegaard and Camus dismiss the viability of this option. Camus states that it does not counter the Absurd. Rather, the act of ending one's existence only becomes more absurd.
  • Religious, spiritual, or abstract belief in a transcendent realm, being, or idea: a solution in which one believes in the existence of a reality that is beyond the Absurd, and, as such, has meaning. Kierkegaard stated that a belief in anything beyond the Absurd requires a non-rational but perhaps necessary religious acceptance in such an intangible and empirically unprovable thing (now commonly referred to as a "leap of faith"). However, Camus regarded this solution, and others, as "philosophical suicide".
  • Acceptance of the Absurd: a solution in which one accepts the Absurd and continues to live in spite of it. Camus endorsed this solution, believing that by accepting the Absurd, one can achieve absolute freedom, and that by recognizing no religious or other moral constraints and by revolting against the Absurd while simultaneously accepting it as unstoppable, one could possibly be content from the personal meaning constructed in the process. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, regarded this solution as "demoniac madness": "He rages most of all at the thought that eternity might get it into its head to take his misery from him!
Let us all pick one and stop bothering eachother in this monstrous thread.
Click to expand...

OR... you could ignore the problem... at least until it becomes clear that the absurdity's coming to an end... if you're lucky, though, you won't see it coming.
 
"Philosophical suicide...", "Accepting the absurd...", "Absolute freedom...", "Revolting against the absurd while simultaneously accepting it as unstoppable..."

I guess it doesn't come free of confusion, then. :lol:
 
Herman Van Rompuy said:
"Philosophical suicide...", "Accepting the absurd...", "Absolute freedom...", "Revolting against the absurd while simultaneously accepting it as unstoppable..."

I guess it doesn't come free of confusion, then. :lol:
Click to expand...

Everything is absurd. That in itself is a simple concept.

Its how you deal with/explain that which you have choice over.

If people chose a God to explain that, then so be it.
 
You know, somehow, I think it may take more than copy and pasting from a Wikipedia page to end religious debate...
 
Eriku said:
OR... you could ignore the problem... at least until it becomes clear that the absurdity's coming to an end... if you're lucky, though, you won't see it coming.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much the third option...
 
Herman Van Rompuy said:
The Book of Revelation precludes that, Grinner. The Book of Revelation gives us the conclusion of the story and finishes by stating that nothing can be taken away and nothing added to the prophecy of the Book of Revelation. It ends with a prohibition of altering the book, the promise that Jesus is coming soon and gives a final pronouncement of blessing.

There isn't any word to add because we're told how the end times will unfold and what their conclusion will be in the final book of the Bible, the Book of Revelation.
Click to expand...

Why would you think that something written 60-100 AD by a Greek bloke is the unchangable word of a god? Its very doubtful we are even currently working with a 100% accurate translation so it is already fallible.

Plus we all know that there were various revelations books that weren't used and that this one was adopted because Athanasius wanted to use it as a weapon to attack Christians who questioned him.
 
One thing I've always wondered is what about these tribes cut off in the jungles who've never heard of christ or god? Where do they stand?

And I think it's also wildly unfair that people born into a heavily religious family the cards stacked one way or another too :(
 
PhilipB said:
What about certain tribes that remain basically cut off from the world? Like those in the Amazonian rainforest? They have no chance of ever hearing about Jesus or understanding who he is supposed to be. So do they just go to hell because of that? Seems a bit harsh, they never even had a choice.
Click to expand...

Herman Van Rompuy said:
Well, there are similar questions about babies who die too young to have any concept of Christ and those who are aborted before they can leave the womb. The Christian position is interesting with regards to this. I don't know how familiar you are with the story of David and Bathsheba but after impregnating her and having Bathsheba's husband killed, David was brought to repentance by the Lord and was ultimately forgiven, but the child Bathsheba had died. And David says something very interesting. He says in 2 Samuel 12:23 "But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”

He appears to be saying that he will be reunited with his son in death. It's the most coherent interpretation of what David's saying in his time of mourning. He can't bring him back, the child won't return, but he will go to him. It's a an expectation of future personal reunion.

The only thing you can take away from that is that God is a just judge who can be trusted with cases like that. There are many stories of people without access to the gospel having dreams about Jesus and being born again by these direct encounters with Christ. You certainly can't make a case for all the most remote tribes of man going to hell, anyway.

But there's an underlying assumption to your question which is equally interesting. The disciples of Christ were commissioned to take the gospel to every nation and tongue but we need to remember that gospel is a mercy to man. It's not God's obligation to rescue every sinner on the planet. That would make grace compulsory and then grace couldn't be grace. Grace and mercy are unmerited. Once you start assuming God has an obligation to man you take on a kind of humanism.
Click to expand...

PhilipB said:
That's just silly then, he places an obligation on every man/woman/child that can't possibly be met in some circumstances. Which seems rather unjust.

I bet every single person who has dreamt about Jesus, would have had some idea of who he was though.
Click to expand...

Redlambs said:
One thing I've always wondered is what about these tribes cut off in the jungles who've never heard of christ or god? Where do they stand?

And I think it's also wildly unfair that people born into a heavily religious family the cards stacked one way or another too :(
Click to expand...
 
Oh and some of them may have been too "wicked"

Herman Van Rompuy said:
No. I gave the example of David's son to demonstrate that's not the case. The point is that a Christian cannot tell you who is in hell and who isn't. For all I know there are countless people who seemed to be unbelievers until their deathbed but who repented on their dying breath. Similarly, I can't tell you about which remote tribes people would go to heaven or hell. Perhaps some are so wicked God doesn't give them the gospel in judgement? How would anybody know that? And if that was the case, what issue could you take with God, who knows the heart of every individual on the planet?
Click to expand...
 
So it's basically the same answer I got in church, that they don't really know and at best God is now judging people by different standards.

Why isn't this sort of thing in the bible if it's god's word? At the time man is unlikely to know of these things, but God would. So how come it's left unanswered?
 
Herman Van Rompuy said:
Yeah, think I gave a pretty comprehensive answer to the question.
Click to expand...

You seem to be upfront as best you can on all this mate, so if you like have a go at the question above as to why something like that is left out? The cynic in me suggests it's because at the time of writing the bible the men who did would have had little to no concept of it, or that you'll tell me about 'interpretations' or 'mysterious ways', but I'm genuinely interested in seeing what you think.
 
Redlambs said:
So it's basically the same answer I got in church, that they don't really know and at best God is now judging people by different standards.

Why isn't this sort of thing in the bible if it's god's word? At the time man is unlikely to know of these things, but God would. So how come it's left unanswered?
Click to expand...

There isn't a direct answer in the Bible to every single question you can ask. There are principles which can guide people to a healthy expectation.

If somebody loses a young child, then they can expect that the Lord has not overlooked that child and as a good judge and a redeemer, the parents can find peace in that knowledge.

I'll give you an example from my own life. I found out a year or so ago that my mother had an abortion just a few months before she became pregnant with me. My firm expectation is that I have a brother or sister who is with the Lord in heaven, just based on who God is and the example of David's son.

It's a bit different when it comes to distant tribes of man because they have lived a life of sin, just like the rest of us. And we know that some distant tribes of man are totally depraved and engage in things like cannibalism. While I can't say for certain, I don't expect those people to be in heaven because it is right that every sinner goes to hell for their sin apart from the knowledge of Jesus Christ.
 
Distant tribes of man have lived a life of sin? :lol:
 
Herman Van Rompuy said:
There isn't a direct answer in the Bible to every single question you can ask. There are principles which can guide people to a healthy expectation.

If somebody loses a young child, then they can expect that the Lord has not overlooked that child and as a good judge and a redeemer, the parents can find peace in that knowledge.

I'll give you an example from my own life. I found out a year or so ago that my mother had an abortion just a few months before she became pregnant with me. My firm expectation is that I have a brother or sister who is with the Lord in heaven, just based on who God is and the example of David's son.

It's a bit different when it comes to distant tribes of man because they have lived a life of sin, just like the rest of us. And we know that some distant tribes of man are totally depraved and engage in things like cannibalism. While I can't say for certain, I don't expect those people to be in heaven because it is right that every sinner goes to hell for their sin apart from the knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

So do you think that's perfectly acceptable? God makes these people in his/her/it's image, yet gives them no chance to find him?

And I'm not asking to mock or insult, I'm genuinely asking out of interest.
 
Arruda said:
Distant tribes of man have lived a life of sin? :lol:
Click to expand...

Yep, just like every human being on the planet. Apart from grace there is no salvation for man, and grace is free; it is not required of God.

niMic said:
You've got to excuse Herman, his beliefs were conjured up by bronze age peoples.
Click to expand...

Given what you believe, in 2000 year's time people will be making the exact same kind of derogatory remarks about the time period in which your beliefs were formed.
 
Redlambs said:
So do you think that's perfectly acceptable? God makes these people in his/her/it's image, yet gives them no chance to find him?

And I'm not asking to mock or insult, I'm genuinely asking out of interest.
Click to expand...

I am afraid this is the problem of bad theologians giving people a wrong impression. The Bible makes it clear that no man seeks God. Isaiah 53:6 "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned - every one- to his own way" and Romans 3:11 "No one understands, there is no one who seeks God..."

The biblical narrative is about the trinitarian salvation of a people who do not seek after God. The Father who decrees and creates through the Son. The Son who dies on a cross and is raised to new life as the first fruits of the resurrection for all those who will be saved, and the Holy Spirit who turns those who are dead in sin and lost in darkness into those who are alive to God and delight in the light.

You see, once you shake yourself free from humanist assumptions, you can read the Biblical narrative with God as the focus. it is God's glory and God's honour that is being revealed and it is an act of incredible compassion that the Lord's desire is to reconcile to himself a perverse and sinful people and to adorn them as coheirs of the Kingdom of God.

This is why theology matters and why so many sloppy, wishy washy theologians create more problems than they solve.
 
Herman, you're awfully reminiscent of my paternal grandmother. She's a Jehovah's witness. Any question I asked of her, she opened the bible, instantly finding the right page, and answered with some kind of unrelated crap. Everything is there. There was no reasoning, no argument, just quotations.

My maternal grandmother was Catholic. I felt it was a slightly more hypocritical core of beliefs, but at least I could have a normal conversation with her.

God bless Mafalda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafalda), the best thing Argentina ever created, far above Maradona and Messi. If she wasn't such a staunch companion of mine during my childhood my critical thinking would be lost in the middle of the above influences.
 
Herman Van Rompuy said:
I am afraid this is the problem of bad theologians giving people a wrong impression. The Bible makes it clear that no man seeks God. Isaiah 53:6 "No one understands, there is no one who seeks God..."

The biblical narrative is about the trinitarian salvation of a people who do not seek after God. The father who decrees and creates through the Son. The Son who dies on a cross and is raised to new life as the first fruits of the resurrection for all those who will be saved, and the Holy Spirit who turns those who are dead in sin and lost in darkness into those who are alive to God and delight in the light.

You see, once you shake yourself free from humanist assumptions, you can read the Biblical narrative with God as the focus. it is God's glory and God's honour that is being revealed and it is an act of incredible compassion that the Lord's desire is to reconcile to himself a perverse and sinful people and to adorn them as coheirs of the Kingdom of God.

This is why theology matters and why so many sloppy, wishy washy theologians create more problems than they solve.
Click to expand...

So why then follow a religion, why take the risk that everything you live your life by is the word of a god and not someone trying to control the population?

For example, it seems incredibly strange that the bible itself is so old and appears to have little if anything to do with modern life. Why, for instance, would Jesus appear in the time he did where his word could be spread the least accurately? Man was around well before that, as we know, so why give us free will, then threaten us with eternal damnation if we go against that free will, and leave so much open to interpretation and indeed misinterpretation and do all this in a time where little could actually influence the world's population?
 
Redlambs said:
So why then follow a religion, why take the risk that everything you live your life by is the word of a god and not someone trying to control the population?

For example, it seems incredibly strange that the bible itself is so old and appears to have little if anything to do with modern life. Why, for instance, would Jesus appear in the time he did where his word could be spread the least accurately? Man was around well before that, as we know, so why give us free will, then threaten us with eternal damnation if we go against that free will, and leave so much open to interpretation and indeed misinterpretation and do all this in a time where little could actually influence the world's population?
Click to expand...
lol no worlds 6000 years old
 
Redlambs said:
One thing I've always wondered is what about these tribes cut off in the jungles who've never heard of christ or god? Where do they stand?

And I think it's also wildly unfair that people born into a heavily religious family the cards stacked one way or another too :(
Click to expand...

Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
Click to expand...

Catechism of the Catholic Church, para 1260.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.