Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
(1) The pains of hell differ in degree according to demerit. This holds true not only of the pain of sense, but also of the pain of loss. A more intense hatred of God, a more vivid consciousness of utter abandonment by Divine goodness, a more restless craving to satisfy the natural desire for beatitude with things external to God, a more acute sense of shame and confusion at the folly of having sought happiness in earthly enjoyment �?�¢?? all this implies as its correlation a more complete and more painful separation from God.

(2) The pains of hell are essentially immutable; there are no temporary intermissions or passing alleviations. A few Fathers and theologians, in particular the poet Prudentius, expressed the opinion that on stated days God grants the damned a certain respite, and that besides this the prayers of the faithful obtain for them other occasional intervals of rest. The Church has never condemned this opinion in express terms. But now theologians are justly unanimous in rejecting it. St. Thomas condemns it severely (In IV Sent., dist. xlv, Q. xxix, cl. 1). [Cf. Merkle, “Die Sabbatruhe in der HÃ???Ã??Ã?¶lle” in “Romische Quartalschrift” (1895), 489 sqq.; see also Prudentius.]

However, accidental changes in the pains of hell are not excluded. Thus it may be that the reprobate is sometimes more and sometimes less tormented by his surroundings. Especially after the last judgment there will be an accidental increase in punishment; for then the demons will never again be permitted to leave the confines of hell, but will be finally imprisoned for all eternity; and the reprobate souls of men will be tormented by union with their hideous bodies.

(3) Hell is a state of the greatest and most complete misfortune, as is evident from all that has been said. The damned have no joy whatever, and it were better for them if they had not been born (Matthew 26:24). Not long ago Mivart (The Nineteenth Century, Dec., 1892, Febr. and Apr., 1893) advocated the opinion that the pains of the damned would decrease with time and that in the end their lot would not be so extremely sad; that they would finally reach a certain kind of happiness and would prefer existence to annihilation; and although they would still continue to suffer a punishment symbolically described as a fire by the Bible, yet they would hate God no longer, and the most unfortunate among them be happier than many a pauper in this life. It is quite obvious that all this is opposed to Scripture and the teaching of the Church. The articles cited were condemned by the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office on 14 and 19 July, 1893 (cf. “CiviltÃ???Ã??Ã?  Cattolica”, I, 1893, 672).[/quote]

whered you copy paste that jumble from …sigh read the questions again maybe - i didnt want to know about the “pains” of hell and that other shizenhousen you wrote…sigh sigh sigh[/quote]

Maybe you should read it then, because I answered your question.

You’re soul is judged and you are either sent to Inferno, Purgatorio, or Paradiso depending on the state of your soul when you die. No, the fire and heat will not be punishmen when it is just our souls. However, we will have a more intense hatred of God, a more vivide concsiousness of utter abandonment by Divine goodness, a more restless craving to satisfy the natural desire for beatitude with things external to God, a more acute sense of shame and confusion…basically our souls will be tortured. After the final judgement (see bolded and underlined section that you conveniently did not read) our bodies are brought to us to either burn in inferno, or to worship the Lord in Paradiso.

I would think such an educated person would have read Dante’s Divine Comedies, but I guess not. Otherwise you’d know how the Church views Hell (Inferno), Purgatory (Purgatorio), and Heaven (Paradiso). Clarify, no the Divine Comedies are not Dogma.

242

[quote]Rza UK wrote:
I guess its just like the movies! you will die, then you will see your body on the floor. You will be slightly see-through, then you get called to heaven or hell! or wonder round the earth because you have unfinished bussiness!
[/quote]

I never once said this or posted anything that could be inferred to this. Straw man.

243

Purgatory wasn’t added until Medieval times, right?

244

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
pink unicorn[/quote]

I guess we’re not talking about Christianity anymore? Tell me again which religion believes in pink unicorns?

245

[quote]Rza UK wrote:
did you know there are roads in heaven! lol!
[/quote]

What are you talking about? I mean I understand you don’t know what you’re talking about, but really you don’t have to make shit up, and next time. Why don’t you not fail so hard on posting YouTube videos.

246

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Purgatory wasn’t added until Medieval times, right?[/quote]

No, It’s been around since start it’s in the New Testament and the Old Testament. People get confused when something is put in doctrine, it does not mean somebody just made something up, it means there was heresy going around and to clear it up they put it in doctrine.

247

[quote]forlife wrote:
I guess it depends how you define selfishness. Is it selfish to give your life to save the life of your child, or even the life of a stranger? People have done this because they valued others equally or even more than they valued themselves. Doing it for the promise of a heavenly reward is more selfish, IMO, than doing it for the sake of the act itself,[/quote]

My point is that we are all selfish to one degree or another. It’s human nature to pursue your own self interests. If you say that “being good” so that you someday you will reap a reward in heaven is selfish, then tell me what is pursuing a life of endless personal fulfillment sometimes at the expense of others called?

248

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Huh?

How does any of this somehow remove the act from the realm of morality? Are you talking about separating intentions and acts? Because you can’t. Just because the intention was a mistaken one is no excuse for the act.

In fact, what you are posting is, so far as I can tell, in almost exact agreement with the point Sloth was originally making when he brought this topic up. He specifically gave an example of a guard who saw (eventually) what he was doing as “right.”

I think I am missing your point or something here.

Just for clarification, MY point was that what the Nazis did, the acts, are pretty well universally agreed to be immoral. You’ll have to find some way to excuse (and thereby condone) those acts if you want to argue otherwise.

[/quote]

If every German at the time believed that it would be immoral to try to exterminate Jews, this would not have happened. But millions did. Were they all crazy? What were they?

For sake of argument, let’s assume HeadHunter isn’t a sad little troll, but that he represents a mindset prevalent among a significant portion of US citizens. Just nuke 'm, he says. Forget about innocent humans; just do it.

Even on PWI you’d find some men who’d argue in favor of this sick idea. Are they crazy? What are they?

My point is that, eventhough outright genocide may be appaling to most people in most scenarios, give them the right context and genocide becomes an option.

249

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

So, does it go both ways? Can you think of a situation in which discriminating against another group would be “right?” I’m not talking about protecting oneself, because I am pretty sure that is not what the nightclub owner had in mind. What I mean is, since it’s all relative, is it possible there is place or a time or a state that would allow for blatant discrimination against another group? Another race?

[/quote]

…i see no problem with being intolerant of intolerance. The easy way out of blaming others for my problems, that’s not me. But i don’t think that a system that allows for certain freedoms should have those freedoms used against itself, in order to bring it down. I can’t think of another scenario, to be honest…[/quote]

So, if we define intolerance here as: denying rights or privileges to a certain group of people based upon strictly superficial reasons (different color of skin, for instance) and for no other reason, may I then assume you believe that intolerance is wrong in any case?

Maybe I’m working too hard recently, but I’m having trouble understanding both of your last posts. If you could clarify I’d appreciate it. [/quote]

Not in any case. I’m intolerant of intolerance. I don’t know what more to say.

250

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
I guess it depends how you define selfishness. Is it selfish to give your life to save the life of your child, or even the life of a stranger? People have done this because they valued others equally or even more than they valued themselves. Doing it for the promise of a heavenly reward is more selfish, IMO, than doing it for the sake of the act itself,[/quote]

My point is that we are all selfish to one degree or another. It’s human nature to pursue your own self interests. If you say that “being good” so that you someday you will reap a reward in heaven is selfish, then tell me what is pursuing a life of endless personal fulfillment sometimes at the expense of others called?

[/quote]

Capatalism?

251

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

So, does it go both ways? Can you think of a situation in which discriminating against another group would be “right?” I’m not talking about protecting oneself, because I am pretty sure that is not what the nightclub owner had in mind. What I mean is, since it’s all relative, is it possible there is place or a time or a state that would allow for blatant discrimination against another group? Another race?

[/quote]

…i see no problem with being intolerant of intolerance. The easy way out of blaming others for my problems, that’s not me. But i don’t think that a system that allows for certain freedoms should have those freedoms used against itself, in order to bring it down. I can’t think of another scenario, to be honest…[/quote]

So, if we define intolerance here as: denying rights or privileges to a certain group of people based upon strictly superficial reasons (different color of skin, for instance) and for no other reason, may I then assume you believe that intolerance is wrong in any case?

Maybe I’m working too hard recently, but I’m having trouble understanding both of your last posts. If you could clarify I’d appreciate it. [/quote]

Not in any case. I’m intolerant of intolerance. I don’t know what more to say.
[/quote]

Re-read my definition. Intolerance is not a group of people nor can it be disenfranchised.

252

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
(1) The pains of hell differ in degree according to demerit. This holds true not only of the pain of sense, but also of the pain of loss. A more intense hatred of God, a more vivid consciousness of utter abandonment by Divine goodness, a more restless craving to satisfy the natural desire for beatitude with things external to God, a more acute sense of shame and confusion at the folly of having sought happiness in earthly enjoyment �??�?�¢?? all this implies as its correlation a more complete and more painful separation from God.

(2) The pains of hell are essentially immutable; there are no temporary intermissions or passing alleviations. A few Fathers and theologians, in particular the poet Prudentius, expressed the opinion that on stated days God grants the damned a certain respite, and that besides this the prayers of the faithful obtain for them other occasional intervals of rest. The Church has never condemned this opinion in express terms. But now theologians are justly unanimous in rejecting it. St. Thomas condemns it severely (In IV Sent., dist. xlv, Q. xxix, cl. 1). [Cf. Merkle, “Die Sabbatruhe in der HÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¶lle” in “Romische Quartalschrift” (1895), 489 sqq.; see also Prudentius.]

However, accidental changes in the pains of hell are not excluded. Thus it may be that the reprobate is sometimes more and sometimes less tormented by his surroundings. Especially after the last judgment there will be an accidental increase in punishment; for then the demons will never again be permitted to leave the confines of hell, but will be finally imprisoned for all eternity; and the reprobate souls of men will be tormented by union with their hideous bodies.

(3) Hell is a state of the greatest and most complete misfortune, as is evident from all that has been said. The damned have no joy whatever, and it were better for them if they had not been born (Matthew 26:24). Not long ago Mivart (The Nineteenth Century, Dec., 1892, Febr. and Apr., 1893) advocated the opinion that the pains of the damned would decrease with time and that in the end their lot would not be so extremely sad; that they would finally reach a certain kind of happiness and would prefer existence to annihilation; and although they would still continue to suffer a punishment symbolically described as a fire by the Bible, yet they would hate God no longer, and the most unfortunate among them be happier than many a pauper in this life. It is quite obvious that all this is opposed to Scripture and the teaching of the Church. The articles cited were condemned by the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office on 14 and 19 July, 1893 (cf. “CiviltÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?  Cattolica”, I, 1893, 672).[/quote]

whered you copy paste that jumble from …sigh read the questions again maybe - i didnt want to know about the “pains” of hell and that other shizenhousen you wrote…sigh sigh sigh[/quote]

Maybe you should read it then, because I answered your question.

You’re soul is judged and you are either sent to Inferno, Purgatorio, or Paradiso depending on the state of your soul when you die. No, the fire and heat will not be punishmen when it is just our souls. However, we will have a more intense hatred of God, a more vivide concsiousness of utter abandonment by Divine goodness, a more restless craving to satisfy the natural desire for beatitude with things external to God, a more acute sense of shame and confusion…basically our souls will be tortured. After the final judgement (see bolded and underlined section that you conveniently did not read) our bodies are brought to us to either burn in inferno, or to worship the Lord in Paradiso.

I would think such an educated person would have read Dante’s Divine Comedies, but I guess not. Otherwise you’d know how the Church views Hell (Inferno), Purgatory (Purgatorio), and Heaven (Paradiso). Clarify, no the Divine Comedies are not Dogma.[/quote]

I read, you could have been a lot clearer though…

In complete respect and honesty for your beliefs - hell sounds more like a medieval tactic to scare people into the church, given it was the place where revenues were raised(not saying they did good/bad thing with the money) - and money = power…its just people are either not afraid, lazy, or dont care about religion anymore hence increasing numbers of atheists. Religion now don’t have the money, and have decreasing power/influence.

Dont yell straw man or red herring at me, its a legitimate argument

253

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I’m Catholic. We believe Hell is very hot and unpleasant, possibly more terrible than it is even possible to imagine. I don’t think this is at odds with what I’ve posted so far.

It seems like punishment because you are a human, viewing it through your mortal, human lens; fogged and warped and distorted by the physical body we inhabit and the physical world in which we reside. And through this lens you presume to judge the actions of God.

If you really believe there is absolutely no God, and all of this just sprang forth from pure nothingness, then that’s one thing. But if you will presume to talk about what God is or does or what He should or shouldn’t do, then you would do well not to forget the above paragraph. [/quote]

Are you saying we can’t judge God by human standards? But isn’t that exactly what you do to judge when he is good to you? It seems that human standards are perfect for an entity that is ruled by human emotion (the most prominent being jealousy).

254

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Faith is a major wedge between ethics and suffering - where certain actions cause no suffering at all, religion still maintains that the actions are evil and worthy of punishment (sodomy,homosexuality, masturbation). And yet, where suffering and death are found in abundance, their causes are deemed to be “good” (withholding funding for family planning in the third world, prosecuting non-violent drug offenders, preventing stem cell research etc).

The inversion of priorities not only squanders resources and victimizes innocent people, it falsifies our ethics. A more reasonable approach to matters of right and wrong is sorely needed.[/quote]

Sodomy and masturbation are considered evil because it doesn’t allow for the possibility of life.[/quote]

So if a guy rubs one out in his own home, alone, this is a crime worthy of your judgment? Of two consenting adults practice anal or oral sex in their own home, alone, this is a crime worthy of your attention? If a guy tokes up in his own home on the weekend, gets REAAAAL high and falls asleep, this is a crime?

255

[quote]Rza UK wrote:
problem is that if we (atheists) are wrong, then we get to go “holy sh^t I was wrong there is a god!”
whereas if the beleivers are wrong, they just die, so they never get to find out they are wrong! they die thinking their right! [/quote]

Belief “just in case” is a pretty shit reason for belief.

256

maybe not a straw man, but probably an absurd argument.

to be scared by Hell, you have to be already a christian.
if you are not, you won’t be afraid by it, no matter what the Church tells you about it.

doesn’t sound like an good fear tactic, since you will only scare those who are already in your power, and already giving you money. and no one else.

[quote]problem is that if we (atheists) are wrong, then we get to go “holy sh^t I was wrong there is a god!”
whereas if the beleivers are wrong, they just die, so they never get to find out they are wrong! they die thinking their right! [/quote]

ok, so we have to believe just in case.
but believe in which god(s) exactly ?
because if you choose the wrong one, you may still experiment a “holy sh*t, i was wrong, there is a God and it’s not the one i believed in” moment.

257

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
In fact, what you are posting is, so far as I can tell, in almost exact agreement with the point Sloth was originally making when he brought this topic up. He specifically gave an example of a guard who saw (eventually) what he was doing as “right.”

[/quote]

Spot on. The wrong becomes the right, and the right becomes the wrong. If you master the guilt associated with certain actions and thoughts, or lacked it in the first place, shooting the deatch camp prisoner is now the moral thing to do, while sneaking him some extra gruel is the wrong thing.

Now, the moral relativist standing outside of all of this might say “Those actions committed by them FEELS wrong, to me.” But one aware of his moral relativism must then admit that his feelings have betrayed him. There is no right or wrong, just different opinions.

Consider a self-aware moral relativist, and shining beacon of the aryan by all apearances, living within such a society (as Nazi Germany). His own position is secure, as far as not being put on a train and sent off to a camp. However, the actions of his leaders are coming to light, and he finds himself feeling repulsed, even FEELING guilty (not the he actually can be) for his passiveness in the face of the evil (feelings and opinion) being committed in his country. But, this is a person aware of moral relativism. An honest, true-believing moral relativist. He understands that he is only experiencing FEELINGS of right and wrong, moral and immoral, and good and evil. Intellectually he KNOWS such things don’t exist Intellectually he KNOWS (not feels) these actions are no more immoral than they are moral.

Being aware of this, and a true believer, he understands that he need only to kick back, become acclimated to his new world, and as the guilt and the upset FFELINGS diminish, so too the immorality of it all. Attend enough rallies, and the bad even becomes the good. Understanding all of this ahead of time, the guilt is already diminishing, the day looks a little brighter, and maybe he ought to report the nature of his neighbor’s heritage. Why, when safe from persecution yourself, risk life and limb to right a wrong that doesn’t actually exist. Maybe it was time for a new outlook anyways, right? [/quote]

The Nazi guard who shoots Jews or loads them into the oven and then goes home to be a loving father to his children is a perfect example of the disconnect provided by religion. He didn’t see Jews as human or consider them as part of his moral sphere any more than you would consider a fly or cockroach worthy of your concern. The idea that Jews were inferior was already there thanks to religion, and that is the underlying problem. That belief, that lever that determined the actions of many Germans, that is the problem.

258

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
pink unicorn[/quote]

I guess we’re not talking about Christianity anymore? Tell me again which religion believes in pink unicorns?[/quote]

Who cares? It’s all just as likely.

BRB have to face the Biotest office and do my daily prayer.

259

[quote]kamui wrote:

maybe not a straw man, but probably an absurd argument.

to be scared by Hell, you have to be already a christian.
if you are not, you won’t be afraid by it, no matter what the Church tells you about it.

doesn’t sound like an good fear tactic, since you will only scare those who are already in your power, and already giving you money. and no one else.

[quote]problem is that if we (atheists) are wrong, then we get to go “holy sh^t I was wrong there is a god!”
whereas if the beleivers are wrong, they just die, so they never get to find out they are wrong! they die thinking their right! [/quote]

ok, so we have to believe just in case.
but believe in which god(s) exactly ?
because if you choose the wrong one, you may still experiment a “holy sh*t, i was wrong, there is a God and it’s not the one i believed in” moment.[/quote]

It’s not about scaring adults, it’s about scaring children who are biologically programmed to listen to adults.

260

why would you want to scare them if they are biologically programmed to listen to adults ?
telling them “be christian my son” wouldn’t be enough ?

and btw, how much power and money can you get from children frightened by boogeymen stories ?

sorry, it’s still absurd, or incredibly simplistic.