Kevin's Watch

Avatar wrote:

Xar wrote:...no priest is going to come and call you spawn of Satan for having married a heathen...

Dunno about that...in the course of looking these up a bit, I saw quite a bit of stuff that was pretty clear about the fact that if you married a non-christian, you couldn't be a real christian, and that your marriage would not be sanctioned by god.

But then, that's fundamentalists everywhere for you.

That's the problem, of course... just like the whole fact that somehow fundamentalists always conveniently ignore the "peace and respect" parts of their respective holy books, and always go for the "blood and death" view... but then again, people have this tendency to grab any reason to kill other people, be it religion, country, race, gender, social status, or whatever; the only problem with religious excuses is that you may actually believe you're doing the right thing as sanctioned by your God, whereas in the other cases, your belief, however strong, might leave some tiny little cramped space for doubts.

Agreed and well said.

--A

What Av said. Only, it's not just the fundamentalist priests that will not bless a union between a christian and someone of another religion.

In my understanding, Paul and I are not married in the eyes of HaShem. However, Judaism's definition of a mamzer (bastard) is very different than the common view of one, and Beorn is not viewed any differently than any other Jew born to the combined tribe of Yisroayl.

At all the shul's I attend, even the Lubavitch one, I am treated as a full fledged member of the tribes. Paul is always welcomed heartily whenever he shows up, although there are ritual things he just can not do.

However, Lubavitch is known for being the 'outreach' sect of Hassidim, and we could very well be treated very differently at other Orthodox or Hassidic shuls. I just have not experienced that anyhere we've been.

It must be nice for you, that Paul is treated so well, even if he's not converted.

I believe it is important to tell others about salvation through Jesus Christ. Whether I use words or not is less important. Actions speak louder. If I believe there's a heaven and a hell, the its the most important thing I can do for anyone else. I believe it is my business, in as much as its my business to help anyone who is in need. You may not see the need, but most drug addicts may not see their own need either.

But that doesn't mean pushing it, convincing someone or using force. Jesus let the rich man walk away. He also said to not cast pearls before swine, meaning, if you see your words/actions not being received, don't push it on them. The truth is, its not up to us to save someone, but that's easier said than understood.

Weez wrote:If I believe there's a heaven and a hell, the its the most important thing I can do for anyone else. I believe it is my business, in as much as its my business to help anyone who is in need.

My point exactly CW.

Cybrweez wrote:I believe it is important to tell others about salvation through Jesus Christ. Whether I use words or not is less important. Actions speak louder. If I believe there's a heaven and a hell, the its the most important thing I can do for anyone else. I believe it is my business, in as much as its my business to help anyone who is in need. You may not see the need, but most drug addicts may not see their own need either.

But that doesn't mean pushing it, convincing someone or using force. Jesus let the rich man walk away. He also said to not cast pearls before swine, meaning, if you see your words/actions not being received, don't push it on them. The truth is, its not up to us to save someone, but that's easier said than understood.

I think you have said it well. The problem of cousre is that a moderate approach like this one, threatens the extremists whoc wish to breed conflict.

I know, extremists hurt my attempts to evangelize. It sucks, b/c they give the idea such a bad name. The fact that it happens in any area in life (sports, politics, religion) doesn't matter. We just have to realize there are people out there who drag down good ideas.

The other problem is that the extermists also have more outward, and more easily discernable passion. When you view the world in black and white, it is EASY to fight first. Trying to accept or learn requires observation and consideration, rather than action. In other words, the extremists can exact change more quickly.

Good posts folks.

See 'Weez, there's the thing...while an addict may believe that he doesn't have a problem, his problem is much more quantifiable and demonstrable.

There is always the chance though, when it comes to this sort of thing, that there really isn't any need at all.

Of course, I am convinced of this. But hey, I could be wrong.

--A

spoken like a true advocate of dependency. of course the addict does not have a problem. and neither does the sinner. in his eyes anyway.

No, I'm saying that while the addict may have a problem, and while he maynot see the problem, the "sinner" as you so delightfully describe him, may not actually have one.

And you certainly can't prove that he does.

Indeed, one might say that the "sinner's" problem is only in your perception.

--A

Avatar wrote:No, I'm saying that while the addict may have a problem, and while he maynot see the problem, the "sinner" as you so delightfully describe him, may not actually have one.

And you certainly can't prove that he does.

Indeed, one might say that the "sinner's" problem is only in your perception.

--A

Then again we should define what exactly a "sinner" is. People whose religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are different than our own aren't necessarily sinners: what kind of deity/deities would condemn people to eternal torment just because they don't worship him/her/them, regardless of the morality with which they lived their lives?

For example, let's take Prebe (heh )... a self-proclaimed "militant atheist" or "fundamentalist atheist", who not only does not believe in a deity, but also sometimes actively tries to expose the "fallacies" of religion. To say that Prebe would be damned to Hell for all eternity just because of this, regardless of how much good does he do in his life is, at least as far as I'm concerned, very strange and not altogether acceptable. Does it mean that even if Prebe spent all his life saving children and helping people, sacrificing all he can, he would still be damned?

Ok. With this out of the way, what is exactly a "sinner"? Obviously each religion has its own view of sins, but they can be broadly cathegorized in two different cathegories: "sins of form" and "sins of substance" (this is my own personal denomination, if you're wondering ). "Sins of form" are "sins" derived from not completely adhering to the religion's customs and practices (for example, not respecting all regulations given by religion about how to live daily life); I suppose non-believers would be considered "sinners" in this sense, in the worst case. But these "sins" are minor, if the whole discussion about the importance of morality is true.
"Sins of substance" are those "sins" which seriously break fundamental tenets of the religion. Breaking the "Do not kill" commandment, for example, could be considered one such. The difference with the "sins of form" cathegory is that in most cases, "sins of substance" are very similar throughout all religions, or at least many of them: although for example some religion actually advocate killing (almost always through special circumstances), most are against it, and this can sometimes go against instinct (if a foe is hindering me, human instinct suggests to strike him down for your benefit, not to actually forgive him).

So, if you want to define what a "sinner" is, I'd tend to consider "sinners" those who commit "sins of substance", not "sins of form"; keeping in mind that these sinners are often reviled by society as well, believers and non-believers alike. Take child molesters: there's no denying that almost all religions, if not all of them, would consider this a grievous sin, and almost all people "feel" that such a thing is horribly wrong in their hearts, regardless of whether they believe in a higher power or not. Even calloused criminals, when faced with a child molester, often are disgusted and enraged at the thought of the vileness of such a creature.

Xar wrote:For example, let's take Prebe (heh )... a self-proclaimed "militant atheist" or "fundamentalist atheist", who not only does not believe in a deity, but also sometimes actively tries to expose the "fallacies" of religion.

Who? Me? *looks around in unbelief*

Xar wrote:Obviously each religion has its own view of sins, but they can be broadly cathegorized in two different cathegories: "sins of form" and "sins of substance" (this is my own personal denomination, if you're wondering ).

If you ever start this up let me know. Hell, I might even join up

Good post Xar. In many respects, I agree with you. Of course, I was using the word in the context of not believing being a sin.

And as much as I applaud (as always) your view that god cares more about people's actions than about what they believe in, I'm afraid that it does not tend to be the majority view.

Personally, I don't believe that there is such a thing as sin. There is crime, yes. And cruelty and inhumanity.

--A

Avatar wrote:Good post Xar. In many respects, I agree with you. Of course, I was using the word in the context of not believing being a sin.

And as much as I applaud (as always) your view that god cares more about people's actions than about what they believe in, I'm afraid that it does not tend to be the majority view.

Personally, I don't believe that there is such a thing as sin. There is crime, yes. And cruelty and inhumanity.

I'm not sure about the majority view, Av... at least, not over here. It may be that somehow I have never had a chance to meet an European Christian fundamentalist (or a fundamentalist of other denominations), but I don't think so; rather, my feeling is that most believers here in Europe share the view that actions, and not belief, are what God cares most about. Even in Italy, where one could argue most Christians would be quite vociferous, given the presence of Vatican City in Rome itself, I have never met a fundamentalist in 25 years of life there, and you rarely if ever hear about them on the TV, or read about them in newspapers.

Perhaps this difference, at least when compared to the U.S., can be attributed, at least in part, to different factors, such as the number of Christian splinter groups present over there, the youth of the country when compared to Europe, the missionary spirit of the first settlers and the colons, and so on. I've never been to the U.S. yet, so my opinion of it could be relatively skewed, but my feeling is that people over there are much more vocal - and possibly blunt - about their religious beliefs and adherence to form than they are here in Europe, at least on average. Prebe, what's your experience in Denmark?

In any case, "sin" is just a word, Av... humankind needs words to distinguish and categorize, and that's all it is, really. Yes, you could call it "crime" if you wanted, but it would be a simplification: first of all, because not all crimes are sins and not all sins are crimes (more on this later), but also because "sin" has a spiritual connotation.

A murderer commits both a crime and a sin when he slays someone; he goes to jail for his crime, serves his time and maybe, after a while, he is released (parole, perhaps he pleaded guilty, amnesty, or whatever); or perhaps there isn't enough evidence to convict him and he is let free. Either way, the direct consequences of his crime (prison, trial, even the death penalty) are finite. On the other hand, having served his penalty doesn't mean that the murderer repents what he did; there are plenty of examples of murderers who were let out of prison and started killing again afterwards. So, while a murderer who is released out of jail has paid for his crime, unless he has repented his actions he still has a "sin" weighing on his soul. No amount of jail can erase that sin unless he actually repents the murder: this is a belief common to all religions who condemn murder. What happens to the unrepentant murderer in the afterlife according to these religions differs; he could roast in the fires of Hell, be infinitely removed from God's presence, go through purgatory for a time, be snuffed out like a candle... whatever. But as you see, the concept of religious sin and temporal crime, while largely overlapping, are not the same thing from a believer's perspective. Of course, this is a moot point from an atheist's perspective, but then again, it's not atheists who speak of "sins"

Oh, I said before that not all crimes are sins, and not all sins are crimes. This is because of two reasons: first of all, some "crimes" which law persecutes may be performed for selfless reasons (some religions believe that euthanasia is not a sin, because while technically killing someone, you generally do it because you love them and do not want them to suffer anymore); second, because some things that law judges perfectly legal could be considered sins, even if not necessarily major ones.
Consider the case of wealthy adults who send their elderly, frail parents to cheap hospices and treat them like burdens or embarrassments, visiting only the minimum amount of time necessary and otherwise leaving their parents among strangers; while technically legal, and while in some cases personal histories may explain the reasons behind this treatment, in many cases the simple reason is that the son or daughter is embarrassed by an elderly and possibly mentally frail parent and wants to hide him or her away. In many cases, this is very poor reward for someone who sacrificed most of his or her life to raise you; I leave to the individual person to decide whether this could be a "grievous" or "slight" sin, but to a believer, this kind of behaviour is generally a sin (in Christianity, Judaism or Islam it is also the breaking of a commandment, "honor thy parents").

I've been thinking a lot about this topic lately. Yesterday I went with a friend to a Buddist temple. It was really neat. I asked if you actually have to be Buddist and they said no. They were really great people and I felt good there. I told them about me being a Unicathlitarian and they thought it was quite funny. They gave us some information and told us that it isn't so much a religion, but a way of thinking. Those ways, from what I have seen, to not conflict with my own personal beleifs. It was a neat experience. I want to learn more even though I will never call myself a Buddist. Another friend of mine, as it turns out, goes to the same temple and takes her kids to the kid thing they have. They hate church (thier experiences so far) but they really like this. I think I'd like to take my kids there too because I feel it is important for them to learn about other beliefs even if they choose not to share those beliefs, but so they can learn respect for them.

Xar wrote:Prebe, what's your experience in Denmark?

Only about 2% go to church on Christmas, and a lot fewer every sunday. I think it's fair to say, that despite the fact that I have many friends and aquaintances I know only one person (a former colleague of mine) that considers himself christian. I'm sure his view would have been the same as yours by the way.

The Jehovas Witnesses I've had knockin on my door are of course different. The pentecostal denominations around here are also generally pretty fire-and-brimstoney.

But my personal experiences with christians here are very few.

Prebe wrote:

Xar wrote:Prebe, what's your experience in Denmark?

Only about 2% go to church on Christmas, and a lot fewer every sunday. I think it's fair to say, that despite the fact that I have many friends and aquaintances I know only one person (a former colleague of mine) that considers himself christian. I'm sure his view would have been the same as yours by the way.

The Jehovas Witnesses I've had knockin on my door are of course different. The pentecostal denominations around here are also generally pretty fire-and-brimstoney.

But my personal experiences with christians here are very few.

Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses are pretty much everywhere... and given that one of their duties is proselitize, and that they're notorious for their stubbornness when trying to do so, they sort of stand out. As a short off-topic, here's a page I found that lists all sorts of strange practices they should follow: www.geocities.com/Heartland/2919/reasons.html

In any case, most of the whole "guilt/fear of hell/mortification" package which many splinter sects still seem to use (and which can still be heard echoes of in the Catholic church) stems from the Dark Ages and a time when the Church used this to keep the peasants in line and make sure they'd not rebel... at that time, of course, it was also to persuade them to give over their work to the Church. Truth be told, nowadays with the (on average) higher education rate of most developed countries and the possibility to buy and read holy books in any bookstore, as well as the fact that the main Christian religions (like Catholicism) are no longer interested and/or able to command such absolute loyalty as they used to do until the Enlightenment, this kind of view is doomed to fade, at least among mainstream Christians, I believe. It will, however, very likely be conserved among several Christian splinter groups, however, I think.