Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A la carte vs devout and treatement of atheists

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    :confused: Why not?

    Why not, indeed. Love can conquer all, surely? :)


  • Options
    #33
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,159 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Well, yes. Plus, it does strike me that it would have made about as much sense for Mark to suggest that if the atheist in the relationship were really sincere then they wouldn't be marrying a theist.

    Is there a tiny irony here? The thread is about theists' tolerance of/respect for athiests, but does Mark's post suggest that the question could equally be put the other way around? Is he suggesting that sincere theists must be intolerant of atheists, at least to the extent of excluding them as potential marriage partners? And is this evidence that Mark himself is lacking in tolerance/respect for theists (in that he attributes intolerance to them as a class)? Say it ain't so, Mark!


  • Options
    #34
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    If someone genuinely believed that I was defying the will of God and condemning myself to an eternity of suffering...it seems ludicrous to think they would be ok with that and happily marry me.

    Obviously most people don't really believe what they claim to believe.


  • Options
    #35
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,159 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Zillah wrote: »
    If someone genuinely believed that I was defying the will of God and condemning myself to an eternity of suffering...it seems ludicrous to think they would be ok with that and happily marry me.

    And, again, is Zillah demonstrating intolerance of and a lack of respect for theists by impliedly attributing to them, as a class, the view that atheists are defying the will of God and condemning themselves to an eternity of suffering? This isn't a mainstream theistic position in Ireland.
    Zillah wrote: »
    Obviously most people don't really believe what they claim to believe.
    Actually, the issue here is that most people don't believe what Zillah claims they believe. But, then, why should they?


  • Options
    #36
    stanley 2
    Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭stanley 2


    seamus wrote: »
    I view it much like the argument that the most vocal homophobes are likely to be homosexuals themselves, overtly attacking homosexuality so as to convince themselves (and others) that because they hate homosexuals so much, the couldn't possibly be one.

    Those who tend to make the most outspoken attacks on atheists and find themselves annoyed by atheists in my experience tend to be the same ones who are the least secure in their own beliefs. No doubt attacking atheism in the hope that it will strengthen their "faith".

    I should clarify that I'm referring to people who seek out atheists for debate/attack. I'm not saying that anyone who defends religion from criticism is latently atheist.

    In groups, a la carte Catholics tend to dismiss atheists with quantity rather than quality, everyone firing comments/questions at the atheist, comfortable to have the group backup. One-to-one they're much weaker and will shy away when you start to scratch the surface, calling it "far too heavy a subject for a Monday night".

    thinking about this line of taught would this make people who speak out against pedophile s likly to be pedophile


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Well, yes. Plus, it does strike me that it would have made about as much sense for Mark to suggest that if the atheist in the relationship were really sincere then they wouldn't be marrying a theist.

    Is there a tiny irony here? The thread is about theists' tolerance of/respect for athiests, but does Mark's post suggest that the question could equally be put the other way around? Is he suggesting that sincere theists must be intolerant of atheists, at least to the extent of excluding them as potential marriage partners? And is this evidence that Mark himself is lacking in tolerance/respect for theists (in that he attributes intolerance to them as a class)? Say it ain't so, Mark!

    No Mark's post doesn't. By the by, it makes perfect sense that people marry those with a similar philosophy or belief system to their own. I don't think it makes someone intolerant if they are a Christian for example and think that they should marry another Christian. Choosing how to marry is extremely important and will impact your day to day life, it should be considered very seriously.

    I disagree that Mark is intolerant. He's simply pointing out one of the many potential issues that could arise in a relationship between a Christian (even if nominal) and an atheist.


  • Options
    #38
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,159 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    No, Mark doesn't seem (to me) to be saying that a theist might have concerns about marrying an atheist; he's saying that a theist must have such concerns, and that those concerns must be so strong that a real theist would not marry an atheist.

    Obviously, disagreement about fundamental beliefs is going to be an issue in any marriage, but it seems to me that it's an issue for the theist and the atheist alike. But Mark presents it as an issue which it is impossible for a theist to negotiate while remaining true to his theistm, while he makes no similar assertion about an atheist.


  • Options
    #39
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    No, Mark doesn't seem (to me) to be saying that a theist might have concerns about marrying an atheist; he's saying that a theist must have such concerns, and that those concerns must be so strong that a real theist would not marry an atheist.

    Obviously, disagreement about fundamental beliefs is going to be an issue in any marriage, but it seems to me that it's an issue for the theist and the atheist alike. But Mark presents it as an issue which it is impossible for a theist to negotiate while remaining true to his theistm, while he makes no similar assertion about an atheist.

    I think a Christian very strongly ought to have such concerns when committing to marry an unbeliever. I'd say in practically 100% of cases it would be best for a Christian to marry a Christian.

    I think Mark's point was very simple. Why must it be the atheist who has to give deference to some form of religion ny marrying in a place of worship over the believer giving deference to atheism. It's an entirely valid question. It's one of the primary reasons I support marrying within faiths.

    It's not intolerant to not wish to participate in a church wedding if you don't believe. You're not stopping other people. Just you won't participate.


  • Options
    #40
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Peregrinus wrote: »

    And, again, is Zillah demonstrating intolerance of and a lack of respect for theists by impliedly attributing to them, as a class, the view that atheists are defying the will of God and condemning themselves to an eternity of suffering? This isn't a mainstream theistic position in Ireland.

    Actually, the issue here is that most people don't believe what Zillah claims they believe. But, then, why should they?

    Biblical Christianity is quite clear that the only way to salvation is Jesus and the only name under which can be saved is Jesus. He stood in our place on the cross from this perspective, in John's gospel Jesus makes clear that the one who doesn't believe is condemned already (John 3:18).

    It's a tough truth from my perspective and why I long all the more for those who don't believe that they would know Jesus and be saved.

    I think you're right that most people in Ireland don't believe what Jesus said theist or not.


  • Options
    #41
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,159 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    I didn't (and still don't) read Mark's comments as relating to whether an atheist and a theist should marry in church, but rather whether they should marry at all - his point being that a theist-atheist marriage (wherever celebrated) cast doubt upon the sincerity of the theist but not, apparently, on the sincerity of the atheist.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I didn't (and still don't) read Mark's comments as relating to whether an atheist and a theist should marry in church, but rather whether they should marry at all - his point being that a theist-atheist marriage (wherever celebrated) cast doubt upon the sincerity of the theist but not, apparently, on the sincerity of the atheist.

    Why would it cast doubt on the sincerity of the atheist? Atheism isn't a religion, it has no formal creeds. There are logical implications of being an atheist on worldview but none on behaviour or on who one ought to marry.

    On the other hand the Bible strongly advises one to marry a believer.

    So Mark's entirely right (as hard as it is to believe I said that :) ) to say that it casts doubt on the Christian at least.


  • Options
    #43
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    stanley 2 wrote: »
    thinking about this line of taught would this make people who speak out against pedophile s likly to be pedophile
    No.

    There are victims of pedophilia, therefore for all to condemn it is completely justified. There's no victim in a consensual homosexual relationship which begs the question as to why so many feel they have to protect society from it, and are often overtly vocal about it.

    That said, personally I don't subscribe to the notion that hoards of vocal anti-gay protesters are secretly gay, though no doubt some are. Tad Haggard are you listening?!


  • Options
    #44
    Gurgle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    And if the theist in the relationship really believed in god then they wouldn't be marrying an atheist.

    They're grand, its covered somewhere in the bibley thingy:

    "Wives, if your husband is an unbeliever and he leaves then let him go. But if he stays then stay with him for he will be sanctified by your faith"

    ... or something to that effect.


  • Options
    #45
    miss no stars
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,957 ✭✭✭miss no stars


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Sure they do, science is based,no, requires it. The problem is people doing what you are doing here, equating attacking a viewpoint, with attacking a person.

    Not quite. Religion is based on blind faith. Science is based on forming a hypothesis based on what's already known and testing that hypothesis. I was referring to those who go around attacking the person, rather than the belief, which to me is absolutely abhorrent. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Personally I don't see that anyone benefits from actively trying to destroy someone's beliefs if they weren't already questioning anything. If someone's a nice person who happens to believe in god and gets happiness and security from that, who is anyone to attack them for it and try to take that away from them?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Its funny how people say this, but then assume its always the atheist who should give in relationships. You're forgetting that there is two OHs in a marriage, so your statement here can be equally written as:
    If the OH doesn't wants a church wedding, who says the theist's view should trump that?


    Since when? I wouldn't feel right getting married in a church, specially not by some celibate old man (the least qualified type of person to be presiding over someone elses romantic relationship).
    And if the theist in the relationship really believed in god then they wouldn't be marrying an atheist.

    My point was that for many atheists, getting married in a church isn't a deal breaker - it's just a venue that keeps the other half happy. I'm sure if someone with very mild beliefs was marrying a very militant atheist it would be the other way around - no church to keep the OH happy! I never said that all atheists should relent to their partners' wishes and get married in a church, just that for many - what difference does it make other than a happy/unhappy OH? It's called being reasonable. If one partner has very strong opinions in one direction and the other has differing beliefs but wouldn't be put out by going with what the first wants, why have an argument over it?


  • Options
    #46
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    stanley 2 wrote: »
    thinking about this line of taught would this make people who speak out against pedophile s likly to be pedophile
    And people who speak out about rape are inherent rapists and people who speak out about murder are wanna murderers?

    Eh, no. That's a straw man fallacy. As Dades points out, paedophilia causes injury, it has a victim. It is something where each of has the potential to be injured by it. Thus we are justified in speaking out against it.

    Homosexuality and atheism on the other hand are things which do not have the potential to cause injury to the individual. Unless that individual feels that they could potentially be homosexual or atheist and feels that these are "wrong". In which case they will speak out against it.


  • Options
    #47
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    There is a stage in one's discovery of atheism (at least for me there was) when you can feel like you've just escaped a very convincing con man's tricks and of course you are going to want to try and help others to see through it. You believe that they like you will only be delighted for your help. I think that's true of any change in belief system, for example, you see how born again religious can be quite evangelical, it's the same base motivation even if it's coming from a different angle.
    In this country I'd say it's even more likely people becoming atheists will be vocal as many will have been brought up from an early age being told by everyone that catholicism is true and to find out that, at best, that's a dubious statement is rather infuriating to people.


  • Options
    #48
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    This isn't a mainstream theistic position in Ireland.

    If you don't believe in god, you don't get into heaven. Thats the basis of pretty much all religions everywhere. A theist who marries an atheist must, at some stage, recognise that that atheist is not getting into heaven, that at some time the theist and atheist are going to be separated forever. I don't see how a theist could be comfortable marrying someone knowing that that person will not get to spend eternity in heaven with them.


  • Options
    #49
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    miss no stars wrote: »
    Not quite. Religion is based on blind faith. Science is based on forming a hypothesis based on what's already known and testing that hypothesis.

    Science starts with forming hypothesis, but the next step is to "attack" those hypothesis to see if they stand up to scrutiny.
    miss no stars wrote: »
    I was referring to those who go around attacking the person, rather than the belief, which to me is absolutely abhorrent. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Personally I don't see that anyone benefits from actively trying to destroy someone's beliefs if they weren't already questioning anything. If someone's a nice person who happens to believe in god and gets happiness and security from that, who is anyone to attack them for it and try to take that away from them?

    Because no-one has any religious belief that exists in complete isolation from their any other beliefs or actions. Its people like those you describe, who just believe in god for security, that do things like call themselves catholic on the census despite being no such thing (and probably actively disliking the church) or tell people who call for secular education that "it did me no harm" or "go to a different school" (as if thats always an option). These people are the dull masses that stagnate any needed change towards secularism, they are worse the minority of anti-secularist religious fundies.

    Look at it in terms of the theist marrying the atheist in a church. How many people in this country actually want a religious marriage, as opposed to a traditional marriage? How many theists would be happy with a completely non religious marriage that ticks the boxes like big, impressive hall and personal ceremony? But if we want to allow marriages to happen wherever the couple actually want, with whatever ceremony they want, who do you think would be the biggest obstacle to bringing in the legislation? Who's going to say "ah sure, you have to get married in a church, this is a catholic country"?

    Should they be expected to defend their beliefs every minute of every day, from all kinds of attack, (valid, obnoxious or otherwise)? No, there is a time and place for everything. And a cordial level of discussion should be maintained if a reasonable outcome is expected.
    But this notion that they get to hold onto their safety blankets while smothering everyone with them? These people need to grow up.
    miss no stars wrote: »
    If one partner has very strong opinions in one direction and the other has differing beliefs but wouldn't be put out by going with what the first wants, why have an argument over it?

    There shouldn't be. And I'm not against compromises. My point was just that its always assumed that its the theist who strongly believes, while the atheist has no strong opinion.


  • Options
    #50
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,122 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    miss no stars wrote: »
    I was referring to those who go around attacking the person, rather than the belief, which to me is absolutely abhorrent. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

    Okay, but do you really see that happening? It's a favourite straw man argument of some theists that there are hordes of atheists roaming the streets looking for poor innocent believers to attack and insult. Questioning the basis of a religion is not the same thing as attacking or insulting believers, although a lot of them seem to think it is.
    Personally I don't see that anyone benefits from actively trying to destroy someone's beliefs if they weren't already questioning anything. If someone's a nice person who happens to believe in god and gets happiness and security from that, who is anyone to attack them for it and try to take that away from them?

    You can't destroy a belief or take it away from them. They can only do that themselves (and some will cling more strongly to it the more that belief is criticised.) Many people who were brought up as catholics in Ireland do not have a good understanding of what the RCC and the bible are really about, pointing out the inherent contradictions etc. may plant a seed that leads to someone eventually questioning their belief. But that's a path they have to walk down for themselves if they choose to do so.

    Cultural catholics don't really give a damn, they just want to go along with the flow and not have to put any real effort into going to mundane ceremonies (as opposed to weddings, Xmas, baptisms, etc) or living their life in accordance with doctrines or to think about what their beliefs actually are. They don't want to come out of their comfort zone, and don't have a strong enough belief to justify it to themselves if they did start to question it.
    My point was that for many atheists, getting married in a church isn't a deal breaker - it's just a venue that keeps the other half happy.

    It would be for me, thankfully my OH is on the same page. I've dated cultural catholics who went to mass when they went home to their parents, but a regular churchgoer/active believer would end up wrecking my head (or I'd have ended up wrecking theirs.)
    I'm sure if someone with very mild beliefs was marrying a very militant atheist it would be the other way around - no church to keep the OH happy!

    'Militant atheist'? Oh dear. We don't call convinced belivers 'militant christians' do we?
    I never said that all atheists should relent to their partners' wishes and get married in a church, just that for many - what difference does it make other than a happy/unhappy OH?

    Many / most atheists detest the power/influence of organisations like the RCC and want to have no part in the perpetuation of their power and influence. Just going along with the flow means that nothing will change, it will continue to be expected of everyone to conform with the RCC, get their children baptised, send them to RC school, 'do' the sacraments, church wedding, church funeral. The vast majority of parents have no secular school option. In many parts of Ireland there is not even a secular graveyard. Secular of course meaning catering to those of all religions and none.
    It's called being reasonable. If one partner has very strong opinions in one direction and the other has differing beliefs but wouldn't be put out by going with what the first wants, why have an argument over it?

    Most catholics in Ireland are really cultural catholics, with no real belief, so by your reasoning above surely they should be the one to go along with a civil wedding?

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #51
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    If only there was some kind of forum where christians could argue about which one of them was right.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Because no-one has any religious belief that exists in complete isolation from their any other beliefs or actions. Its people like those you describe, who just believe in god for security, that do things like call themselves catholic on the census despite being no such thing (and probably actively disliking the church) or tell people who call for secular education that "it did me no harm" or "go to a different school" (as if thats always an option). These people are the dull masses that stagnate any needed change towards secularism, they are worse the minority of anti-secularist religious fundies.

    Look at it in terms of the theist marrying the atheist in a church. How many people in this country actually want a religious marriage, as opposed to a traditional marriage? How many theists would be happy with a completely non religious marriage that ticks the boxes like big, impressive hall and personal ceremony? But if we want to allow marriages to happen wherever the couple actually want, with whatever ceremony they want, who do you think would be the biggest obstacle to bringing in the legislation? Who's going to say "ah sure, you have to get married in a church, this is a catholic country"?

    Is this not law already? I don't see why anyone could oppose that with justification.

    If people don't want a church wedding they shouldn't have to have one. If people do, then do.


  • Options
    #53
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,915 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    To bring this back to the OP, a huge part of the issue in Birroc's thread was a parenting issue inasmuch as a religious issue. I have found, as a new parent, that when it comes to how you parent you will mostly find that your choices come under 'attack' if your choices make the other people feel bad about their choices. In this instance I suspect that in a lot of cases the à la carte Catholics dislike the church and it's hold on society and have niggling regrets that the baptised their children and allow them to do Catholic instruction at school because they know that to do so reinforces a situation that they aren't really that happy about it. But they did it because everyone does, so it's ok - nothing they could do about it. Then someone like Birroc comes along, refusing to baptise his children and keeping them out of religious instruction at school. He shows that things don't have to be done just because they always have been done that way and it makes them feel bad about not having the courage of their convictions. People who baptised their children because it's a requirement of a faith they believe in don't feel threatened by people who don't baptise, so they don't care.


  • Options
    #54
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Sarky wrote: »
    If only there was some kind of forum where christians could argue about which one of them was right.
    Certainly better than sorting out religious differences with swords, guns, bombs etc.

    BTW, can't say I'm impressed with the charters of these religions, or their heavenly moderators either -- I wonder how many wars could have been prevented if the deity-du-jour had dropped by and carded or banned forum members for breaches of the peace or even just incivility.

    Perhaps it's because the moderators don't exist and the charters are just invented for their own benefit.


  • Options
    #55
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    philologos wrote: »
    Is this not law already? I don't see why anyone could oppose that with justification.

    If people don't want a church wedding they shouldn't have to have one. If people do, then do.

    Maybe I have it wrong (my brother was going to marry a few years ago in a civil wedding, but there were too many restrictions at the time, so he postponed it), but I understood that the system essentially offered two choices: a church wedding (which you just sort out with the church), or a civil wedding in a registry office/approved place. The latter leaves you severely limited in terms of where you can get married (no marquees, private dwellings or open air and the venue will have to satisfy the Registrar), when and who actually can preside over it (there is another thread discussing new laws to let non religious organisations preside over weddings).


  • Options
    #56
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,772 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    think it might be an age thing older more devout brought up not to argue, sure they'll pray for you anyway


  • Options
    #57
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,159 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If you don't believe in god, you don't get into heaven. Thats the basis of pretty much all religions everywhere.
    No offence, but this is a steaming pile of horse manure. Islam teaches this, and some Christian traditions. Catholicism, the dominant form of Christianity in Ireland, explicitly rejects it. As far as Judaism is concerned, personal salvation is not a major theme but, to the extent that Jews believe in personal salvation, they believe it depends on acts, not beliefs. Hinduism and Budhhism have no concept of heaven, and neither teaches that individual destiny depends on believing in god. Nor do Confucianism or Shintoism teach this.


  • Options
    #58
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    No offence, but this is a steaming pile of horse manure. Islam teaches this, and some Christian traditions. Catholicism, the dominant form of Christianity in Ireland, explicitly rejects it. As far as Judaism is concerned, personal salvation is not a major theme but, to the extent that Jews believe in personal salvation, they believe it depends on acts, not beliefs. Hinduism and Budhhism have no concept of heaven, and neither teaches that individual destiny depends on believing in god. Nor do Confucianism or Shintoism teach this.

    Could you link me to what the Catholic church requires for you to get into heaven? I was always of the belief you needed to be keen on Jesus/God as one requirement. Or to put it another way to reject god or jesus is a mortal sin and to not repent sees you doomed for hell.


  • Options
    #59
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Catholicism, the dominant form of Christianity in Ireland, explicitly rejects it.

    Since when does catholicism reject that? You can only get into catholic heaven if you are a catholic, and in order to be a catholic you need to believe in god (its the most fundamental part of the Apostles Creed according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church). The only possible exception is someone who is ignorant of god or jesus.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    As far as Judaism is concerned, personal salvation is not a major theme but, to the extent that Jews believe in personal salvation, they believe it depends on acts, not beliefs.

    Acts you only do because you believe in god, without god the impetus to do religious obligations isn't inherent in the instructions.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Hinduism and Budhhism have no concept of heaven, and neither teaches that individual destiny depends on believing in god. Nor do Confucianism or Shintoism teach this.

    So the religions that don't have heaven, or gods, don't require you to believe in god in order to get into heaven? I never would have figured that :rolleyes:. Did I really need to specify that my post only applies to religions that actually have gods and heavens?


  • Options
    #60
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    seamus wrote: »
    And people who speak out about rape are inherent rapists and people who speak out about murder are wanna murderers?

    Eh, no. That's a straw man fallacy. As Dades points out, paedophilia causes injury, it has a victim. It is something where each of has the potential to be injured by it. Thus we are justified in speaking out against it.

    Homosexuality and atheism on the other hand are things which do not have the potential to cause injury to the individual. Unless that individual feels that they could potentially be homosexual or atheist and feels that these are "wrong". In which case they will speak out against it.

    I'm sorry but the homophobes are repressed homosexuals theory doesn't really make much sense if you think about it.
    Broadly historically speaking in most cultures homosexuality is taboo, if all these homophobes are really repressed homosexuals surely these taboo's wouldn;t have occured.
    (speaking about male homosexuality here, I'm not sure if female homosexuality can be considered the same way, more just ignored)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,159 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Since when does catholicism reject that? You can only get into catholic heaven if you are a catholic . . .
    Absolutely definitely not true, in authoritative Catholic teaching. Had you linked to the section of the Catechism which actually discusses this question, you would have found that the only people the Catholic church regards as excluded from heaven are those “who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it”. And the Catechism explicitly affirms that non-Catholics, non-Christians and non-theists can indeed “achieve eternal salvation”. (So there’s hope for you yet! :)) Paras 846 and 847, if you're interested , and they are footnoted to other authorities if you want to dig into this further.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Acts you only do because you believe in god, without god the impetus to do religious obligations isn't inherent in the instructions.
    Again, absolutely definitely not true, on an authority even more authoritative than the Catechism.

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So the religions that don't have heaven, or gods, don't require you to believe in god in order to get into heaven? I never would have figured that . Did I really need to specify that my post only applies to religions that actually have gods and heavens?
    Hinduism doesn’t have gods?

    And, if you make a claim about “pretty much all religions everywhere”, I don’t think you can blame readers for thinking you’re making a general claim about religion.


Advertisement