The Power of Prayer

[suminonA]

I believe Jesus Christ was a man who taught a better way how to live. Not that he was the Son of God.

Let me ask you a question: What do you think "Christ" stands for in "Jesus Christ"?

A.

[Rei]

P.S. It's none of my business, but your mass characterization of all Christians as believing in God could be offensive to people, and if I were in FT's situation, I would feel like I was being told that my beliefs were "wrong." You might want to watch that, but it's totally not my place to say that.

Um, no. Maybe it is, but that's just too bad now, isn't it?

–noun
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.

Those are the relevant meanings of the noun "Christian". You'll note, if you've read the Gospels, that you can not be any of those things unless you do indeed believe in God. And, to be honest, I would feel deeply insulted that you would even suggest that belief in God is optional for my religion, except that it's among the most absurd statements I've ever heard. If I were in FT's position I would either pick a side and straighten up or vanish into the woodwork. Because right now, neither the atheists nor the Christians want him with them.

And FT, you are allowed to be a moral atheist. You don't need to claim Catholicism in order to be moral. You're right that the teachings of Christianity are more than just believing in God and going to heaven. A whole lot more. But they without question require that you DO believe in God. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord... That doesn't just apply to Catholics, either. It may be the most unifying aspect of Christianity that exists because if you don't believe in the Apostles' Creed, almost nobody will accept you as a Christian.

[Eaquae Legit]

You know you can be an athiest and be moral at the same time, right? I know a lot of moral atheists. They from time to time find themselves in agreement with things Catholicism teaches. You're perfectly allowed to follow any and all of the Church's moral teachings. But let's be very clear here. To be A Catholic, you need to have some sort of belief in God.

A lot of religions allow syncretism. Christianity... not so much.

When you attend mass each week, you recite the Apostles' Creed. You either lie when you say it, or you don't say it. When it comes time for the Eucharist, you take it in a state of great disrespect. I mean... we ask even our Protestant brothers and sisters not to take it, because of their belief regarding it. How much more so someone who doesn't even BELIEVE in a God? YOU might not think it's a big deal, but everyone else around you seriously believes that that is God Incarnate you are accepting. It's disrespectful to them that you partake, and (if they're right) disrespectful (in older times we would have called it "blasphemous") to God.

The body and blood of Christ are incredibly special to me. When I hear about people treating it casually, I am offended. To the point of being revolted. That's a personal thing, and I can't make you do anything about it. I can ask, though. So please, if you continue to go to mass, refrain from taking the Eucharist. To most of the people around you, it is not a joking matter. Have respect for them, if you can't find respect for a God you don't believe exists.

[eriador]

And that's the problem with religion. You can't fully accept people who are different from you. And that's a major source of conflict in this world. I will now gracefully bow out of this thread. Have fun guys.

[Fish Tank]

As far as I know everyone in my Church knows I'm an Atheist. I don't try to hide it.

To be "Catholic" alls I had to do is be baptized Catholic. You do know that right? I was baptized as an infant.

Someone who is baptized in the Catholic Church becomes a Catholic at that moment. One's initiation is deepened by confirmation and the Eucharist, but one becomes a Catholic at baptism. This is true both for children who are baptized (and receive the other two sacraments later) and for adults who are baptized, confirmed, and receive the Eucharist at one time.

I never say I believe in God in church or anywhere else.


I also never said I was a Christian. I said I follow Christian teachings and that I am a Catholic.

Clearly one of the teachings of Christianity is NOT the respect of other's beliefs. I must have picked that up somewhere else.

[hive_king]

EL, I'm an atheist and I go to traditional mass. I just don't recite the Lord's Prayer, or Nicene Creed, and I just cross my arms for a blessing during sacrament. I just figure that in case I AM wrong, a blessing couldn't hurt.

[Eaquae Legit]

Hey, no problems there, h_k. Blessings are good things. Go for it.

[hive_king]

I just love the traditional mass, I love the feel of pomp and sanctity and all the ritual of it. It feels alot more spiritual to me, personally, than modern worship hymns and an acoustic guitar.

[Boothby]

Guest/Anthony,

I just got back to this forum, so I have some catching up.

1) Love the cat.

2) I have positive evidence that there is no afterlife.

Look...no afterlife. Look again...still no afterlife. Wait--what was that? Wow--it looked like an afterlife! No, wait...it was just a cheese sandwich. Sorry...still no afterlife. It's a good cheese sandwich, though (american cheese, lettuce, mayo, on white bread..yumm!)


And about evidence that consciousness is a product of (purely) our biology? I've got that too. Have you ever seen anyone die from chemo/cancer? Have you ever seen their mental state collapse--their consciousness collapse--as their biological systems become devastated by leukemia and the attendant chemotherapy?

I have. Consciousness is a biological process.

[zeroguy]

And about evidence that consciousness is a product of (purely) our biology? I've got that too. Have you ever seen anyone die from chemo/cancer? Have you ever seen their mental state collapse--their consciousness collapse--as their biological systems become devastated by leukemia and the attendant chemotherapy?

I have. Consciousness is a biological process.

Couldn't their consciousness just be on its way out to somewhere else instead of being destroyed entirely? Such as, the deterioration of the biological process is like "pushing" it away to whereverland.

[luminousnerd]

I believe Jesus Christ was a man who taught a better way how to live. Not that he was the Son of God.

You'd be incredibly wrong. Jesus claimed to be the son of God. If he wasn't really the son of God, and yet claimed to be, he had to have done so for vain reasons. And yet teaching "a better way how to live" is not a characteristic of a vain person. So he was either:

The Son of God, sinless, perfect
OR
A total liar, deceiver, etc

[Rei]

To be "Catholic" alls I had to do is be baptized Catholic. You do know that right? I was baptized as an infant.

Someone who is baptized in the Catholic Church becomes a Catholic at that moment. One's initiation is deepened by confirmation and the Eucharist, but one becomes a Catholic at baptism. This is true both for children who are baptized (and receive the other two sacraments later) and for adults who are baptized, confirmed, and receive the Eucharist at one time.

That's what I was taught when I was little, too. That's why it followed that Catholics could be Christians, but most weren't. And it is people like you who cause this viewpoint. I'm currently in the RCIA process at my local parish and have been working hard to foster ecumenism with people I know and meet. And it absolutely disgusts me to see you utter lies like that. A Catholic is not just someone who has taken the rites of initiation. No, a Catholic is someone who has taken the rites of initiation AND accepts and believes the major teachings of the Catholic Church, this includes the points that all Christians can agree upon and the additional beliefs that are Cathlic-specific. If you consciously take any of the rites without accepting and believing these things, you are acting in a way that those who DO believe find to be blasphemous.

I never say I believe in God in church or anywhere else.

So you do not say the creed then, I take it?

I also never said I was a Christian. I said I follow Christian teachings and that I am a Catholic.

Being a Catholic means being a Christian. You can not be a Catholic, even if you claim that title, if you are not a Christian.

[eriador]

I believe Jesus Christ was a man who taught a better way how to live. Not that he was the Son of God.

You'd be incredibly wrong. Jesus claimed to be the son of God. If he wasn't really the son of God, and yet claimed to be, he had to have done so for vain reasons. And yet teaching "a better way how to live" is not a characteristic of a vain person. So he was either:

The Son of God, sinless, perfect
OR
A total liar, deceiver, etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor

[Eaquae Legit]

You forgot "nuts as an unharvested chestnut tree," luminous. He could also have been a crazy man with a huge megalomania problem.

edit: eri, don't go around weilding Ockham's razor in situations it wasn't meant for.

[eriador]

That falls in with the second choice EL. That one's pretty broad.

[Eaquae Legit]

Well, no, if you actually believe you're God, it's not quite a lie. You're just wrong, is all.

[eriador]

This is a perfect situation for the razor. Simply stated it says that, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best one. In this case, we have two equally valid statements, neither of which can be proved, either because of a lack of time travel, or because of the difficulty of proving the existence of a God. In this case, Occam's razor is the best way to chose between the two possibilities, unless you're okay with being unsure. I'll let you come to your own conclusions.

I don't see why you would think that Occam's razor doesn't apply here, unless you're saying that logic shouldn't be applied to your beliefs, which would be so egocentric I wouldn't know what to do with myself.

[eriador]

Well, no, if you actually believe you're God, it's not quite a lie. You're just wrong, is all.

Point taken. They're similar, but different

[Rei]

I would argue that if you're going to insist upon using the razor, it applies the other direction. The simplest explaination for why so many people believe to this day that there is a God would be that there really is one.

[eriador]

No. That means you have to assume the existence of a supernatural being. It's simpler to assume that the people have been deceived, because we know that people deceive eachother, you don't have to make any assumptions. Occam's razor is not only about the simplest explanation, but also the one that requires the fewest assumptions. Instead of assuming that there is some supreme, powerful being for which there is no evidence, we just have to look at other cases where people lie. No assumption needed.

[Eaquae Legit]

No, I'm saying that William formulated his razor in response to the Scholastic philosophy being put forth in the fourteenth century. William was a very devout Catholic (a Franciscan, actually). He disliked the complications he saw in the methodology of his predecssors.

People apply it all the time without knowing what it IS. The simplest explanation isn't necessarily "there is no God," because "there is a God" is really just as simple. "There's a large global delusion that's being going on since time began and every theist is brainwashed" is really not simple methodology.

[eriador]

Yeah, but there's a precedent to believe that people are being deceived. Therefore, no assumptions are required.

I will admit that I erred in saying that Occam's razor was "the simplest solution is the best." I was taught it my freshman science class (which was taught by one of the best teachers I've ever had) that Occam's razor was really about making the fewest number of assumptions, and hence keeping the whole size of the proposition to a minimum. This is what is stated in the basic form of Occam's razor: "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem," which translates as "entities should not be multiplied beyond neccessity." In this case, it is perfectly sufficient to constrain ourselves to humans only, instead of introducing a supernatural being. Saying that God is the answer adds extraneous entities, and so is not the best solution according to Occam's Razor.

Just because Occam's razor was formulated by a guy who was a Catholic doesn't mean that we can't apply it to his beliefs. He may have formulated it in a very specific instance, but one of its beauties is that it can apply to any set of propositions.

[Fish Tank]

Rei:

http://www.catholic.com/library/How_to_ ... tholic.asp

Read that. Specifically paragraph number three.

[hive_king]

People seem to treat Ockham's Razor as if it were some sort of infallible rule of its own right. Ockham's razor may usually be right more often, but it is nowhere as sacred a rule as its treated.

To give an example: what makes more sense using the razor: that if you take a piece of matter and divide it that you can infinitely divide it into smaller and smaller pieces, or taht if you divide a piece of matter, you eventually reach a smallest particle, but can really be broken down into particles that are kinda matter and kinda energy that may or may not exist at any given time?


Lum, you said,

You'd be incredibly wrong. Jesus claimed to be the son of God.

Please show me where Jesus himself claimed to be. Note that "a book probably written by someone who was probably a close friend of his many decades after he died" is not the same as "evidence Jesus himself claimed to be." Its like a game of telephone- even if the gospel writers were being completely honest in what they heard, there's still alot of doubt about what they said.

[eriador]

People seem to treat Ockham's Razor as if it were some sort of infallible rule of its own right. Ockham's razor may usually be right more often, but it is nowhere as sacred a rule as its treated.

To give an example: what makes more sense using the razor: that if you take a piece of matter and divide it that you can infinitely divide it into smaller and smaller pieces, or taht if you divide a piece of matter, you eventually reach a smallest particle, but can really be broken down into particles that are kinda matter and kinda energy that may or may not exist at any given time?

Silly little human (:P), Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation that fits the availible data is the "best". The fact is that there is too much evidence for the atomic theory for one to throw it out as being "too complex". Lum gave us two observations that fit the data equally well, and I'm saying that the idea of a conspiracy requires fewer assumptions, and it therefore preferred by Occam's razor.

Edit: No, of course the razor isn't a rule, it's just a guideline for choosing between two equally good alternatives. So, I use it to justify my choice of there being a huge conspiracy.

[Boothby]

Couldn't their consciousness just be on its way out to somewhere else instead of being destroyed entirely? Such as, the deterioration of the biological process is like "pushing" it away to whereverland.

So, your answer to my question "Have you ever seen anyone die from chemo/cancer? " seems like a "No," then?

It's not like the person is falling asleep; it's not like the dial controlling the strength of consciousness is slowly being turned down. You can see the processes break down. You can see the rationality slowly gyrating this way and that. You see old behaviors bubbling to the surface. You see repetitive acts, disconnected statements. You really do watch the person's mental state degrade along with their body chemistry.

As much as I'd LOVE to believe in an everlasting soul, watching my mom die this way pretty much convinced me there's no such animal. I say "pretty much," because I was an atheist before, during, and after her death. She was an atheist before and during (of course). No deathbed conversion. We still had atheists in our family fox-hole. Watching her die in this way let me realize that we were right in our assumptions. Sad, but correct.

By the way, don't try this at home, kids. I can't recommend strongly enough against this approach to learning.

[Eaquae Legit]

Does a "soul" need to be rational, coherent, or intelligent, then?

I'm not mocking anyone's pain here, or not trying to. But a lot of my clients don't have any of those characteristics, and never had, but I still think of them as having souls.

[eriador]

*hugs Boothby*

I like what you're saying Boothby. Way to go.

Edit: EL, he's saying that the lack of coherent thought as a person's body goes down the tubes shows that consciousness is biological phenomenon, and that that precludes the necessity of a soul that is the heart of consciousness.

[Boothby]

Thanks, eriador, but she's been dead for over 10 years now...I'm good!


EL,

If you want to define a soul as little more than the minimum of self-aware sparks, then fine. Also, then I don't see what all the hubbub about SOUL is for, anyhow?

It's like we started to talk about this wonderful set of fine china and crystal...someone claims that it is made by God, and I turn the plates upside down and show that they were made in Yugoslavia. Then the first person says, "Oh, I didn't mean that fine set of china and crystal, I was talking about those two cheap plasic tumblers on that shelf over there!"

I don't give a damn about the tumblers, dear.

[Eaquae Legit]

That's fine. We're working from different points of view and should know from past experiences neither of us are going to budge.

Amiable disagreement?

[eriador]

You deserve it anyway, for crafting such a great bit of argument.

[Eaquae Legit]

Hm. I'm pretty sure I said I wasn't arguing.

[eriador]

I meant that as in rhetoric. Not as in confrontation. And it was directed at Boothby, in case you didn't get that.

[Eaquae Legit]

Not quite clear what you mean, there. Looked like a comment on my inability to "craft an argument."

[eriador]

Sorry.

I meant that as a compliment to Boothby, nothing more.