You're misunderstanding why I am so off put by it.
My mom has lived her entire life on this moral structure. To see her throw most of it away so easily just to get my niece into a single ceremony... well it was disconcerting. You're right, their motivation was wanting to fit in more, or potentially as Fuzz relayed last page it was in hopes of having a granddaughter in heaven. I suspect more about fitting in, because the parents were not married in a church and the baby was born before the marriage, as you previously pointed out.
The fact that my mom threw away her personal convictions based on the religious views, previously the entire reason I thought she supported the religion, in order to fit into to the acceptance of the community more... that is behavior I dont respect. And I am sure she wouldn't respect it if she were able to look at it impartially.
I'm not trying to attack your stance, merely understand.
I'm still unsure of where you are concluding she threw away her personal convictions? Using their resources (cash) to your sister (impediment) to get their grandchild baptized (saved/go to heaven) seems pretty consistent to me.
Another way that could be concluded in a non-contradictory way seems that you mom could conclude that she used resources (parable of the talents) to facilitate the appropriate environment to discipleship her grand daughter to Christ?
The bible suggests to tithe 10%, so some interpret that as a devout Christian you have obligations to pay your way to heaven (as opposed to giving 10% to the church to redistribute to where there is need).
... Unless you mean the money was used for drunkenness which is a sinful nature? I mean, perhaps there are those who deal with that moral dilemma along the lines of saving one is better than losing all?
Again, apologies. I am not attacking your situation and I totally get that an overbearing religious family member sucks. I just don't get the contradiction and I'm having a hard time following the side conversation relating to it.
So guilty by association? Well, I dunno, I guess that's like saying the American people support Guantanamo Bay because they pay taxes and a sliver of that goes to them, maybe?
Or Red Cross is too admin heavy vs actual aid. So donors are supporting CEOs skimming donations rather than dealing with humanitarian aid? Hmm... doesn't seem like it either.
Even if we say Catholicism did indeed pay settlements to make it go away and didn't address it correctly, it goes to many other things that are positive or operational long before that small percentage goes to those settlements.
Additionally, by highlighting what Catholicism is doing wrong and then trying to play the blanket "religions" card is under handed as well. Also to your point where you say the solution is join a church without scandal... it already is a thing. There's a reason why protestants, for instance, has thousands of denominations. But I don't think that's the out you were offering.
There's so many ways to legitimately blow up religion with ease without cheating. There's no need to stoop to that level. That's all I'm saying.
Your first example isn't a voluntary thing, and people can vote for different governments. If I don't like how the Red Cross operates, I can donate to other institutions. Honestly it sounds like you are saying people paying money ot an organization, and attending it have no culpability,, and I think that's a pretty blinders way to view something. If propel stop going, and stop funding the church, it will collapse, and then they can't commit harm and cover it up. It's pretty basic stuff.
As for the overlooking the positives, that's like saying a murdered should go free because he helped an old lady across the street. It's ridiculous. They can do good without doing harm.
I am saying go to another church. I do know that not all religions are bad, and if it is the protestants, then fine. Join that church. DO SOMETIHNG! Take personal responsibility for or the sins of the institution you fund.
I wasn't attempting to blanket all religions as bad as Catholics, that was just the first post link. I'm sure many are worse. We can the sins of Scientology, Mormonism, Islam, or Satanism...but it's my opinion that essentially they all do more harm than good to society.
I'm not trying to attack your stance, merely understand.
I'm still unsure of where you are concluding she threw away her personal convictions? Using their resources (cash) to your sister (impediment) to get their grandchild baptized (saved/go to heaven) seems pretty consistent to me.
Another way that could be concluded in a non-contradictory way seems that you mom could conclude that she used resources (parable of the talents) to facilitate the appropriate environment to discipleship her grand daughter to Christ?
The bible suggests to tithe 10%, so some interpret that as a devout Christian you have obligations to pay your way to heaven (as opposed to giving 10% to the church to redistribute to where there is need).
... Unless you mean the money was used for drunkenness which is a sinful nature? I mean, perhaps there are those who deal with that moral dilemma along the lines of saving one is better than losing all?
Again, apologies. I am not attacking your situation and I totally get that an overbearing religious family member sucks. I just don't get the contradiction and I'm having a hard time following the side conversation relating to it.
Sorry, just need to pull this out...you don't actually believe that money gets all redistributed to help people, do you?
I'm not trying to attack your stance, merely understand.
I'm still unsure of where you are concluding she threw away her personal convictions? Using their resources (cash) to your sister (impediment) to get their grandchild baptized (saved/go to heaven) seems pretty consistent to me.
Another way that could be concluded in a non-contradictory way seems that you mom could conclude that she used resources (parable of the talents) to facilitate the appropriate environment to discipleship her grand daughter to Christ?
The bible suggests to tithe 10%, so some interpret that as a devout Christian you have obligations to pay your way to heaven (as opposed to giving 10% to the church to redistribute to where there is need).
... Unless you mean the money was used for drunkenness which is a sinful nature? I mean, perhaps there are those who deal with that moral dilemma along the lines of saving one is better than losing all?
Again, apologies. I am not attacking your situation and I totally get that an overbearing religious family member sucks. I just don't get the contradiction and I'm having a hard time following the side conversation relating to it.
I'm reading it as "Mom is suddenly being a religious hypocrite after a lifetime of devotion just to look good with her granddaughter in front of her new church pals." And to the tune of $10k.
I have never understood this, unless there really isn't a hell. I will never, ever stop questioning the story logic of an omnipotent "god" that creates us in his own image and then blames us for his mistakes.
Also free will is an illusion, so suck on that, MoneyGuy.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Well, you see, sometimes god intervenes when god doesn't like what it sees, such as the flood thing with the arc and all that because god is extremely powerful. Then, sometimes god chooses not to intervene even though it could, such as the holocaust, gulag, partition, the list goes on. This can only mean that god likes what it saw.
I think part of the awfulness is the fact that it doesn't value truth and reality. It doesn't value growing our understanding of anything
This is a huge point that I feel does not get addressed or discussed enough and is the source of so much frustration when dealing with religious people.
Once you accept the fact you're speaking with someone who thinks incantations and exorcisms are real you realize they're not willing to do the least bit of work to understand how our world works. They deny undisputable scientific fact at the same time they explain away child rape.
But we're expected to respect their beliefs and support them with our tax dollars as they indoctrinate their children with the same wackiness.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Engine09 For This Useful Post:
Your first example isn't a voluntary thing, and people can vote for different governments. If I don't like how the Red Cross operates, I can donate to other institutions. Honestly it sounds like you are saying people paying money ot an organization, and attending it have no culpability,, and I think that's a pretty blinders way to view something. If propel stop going, and stop funding the church, it will collapse, and then they can't commit harm and cover it up. It's pretty basic stuff.
As for the overlooking the positives, that's like saying a murdered should go free because he helped an old lady across the street. It's ridiculous. They can do good without doing harm.
I am saying go to another church. I do know that not all religions are bad, and if it is the protestants, then fine. Join that church. DO SOMETIHNG! Take personal responsibility for or the sins of the institution you fund.
I wasn't attempting to blanket all religions as bad as Catholics, that was just the first post link. I'm sure many are worse. We can the sins of Scientology, Mormonism, Islam, or Satanism...but it's my opinion that essentially they all do more harm than good to society.
Doesn’t this assume that people have the free will to leave and that religion is a choice as opposed to people being brainwashed victims?
Fair point, but if that is the case, what kind of society do we want where people are brainwashed to financially support child abuse? Should that be a legal thing we allow?
There’s a wealth of data from around the world showing religious people are happier on average than the population at large.
Quote:
Does Spirituality Make You Happy?
…Which should perhaps make it surprising that scientists have found, again and again, that those with a spiritual practice or who follow religious beliefs tend to be happier than those who don’t. Study after study has found that religious people tend to be less depressed and less anxious than nonbelievers, better able to handle the vicissitudes of life than nonbelievers. A 2015 survey by researchers at the London School of Economics and the Erasmus University Medical Center in the Netherlands found that participating in a religious organization was the only social activity associated with sustained happiness—even more than volunteering for a charity, taking educational courses or participating in a political or community organization. It’s as if a sense of spirituality and an active, social religious practice were an effective vaccine against the virus of unhappiness.
Are religious people happier, healthier? Our new global study explores this question
… Actively religious people are more likely than their less-religious peers to describe themselves as “very happy” in about half of the countries surveyed. Sometimes the gaps are striking: In the U.S., for instance, 36% of the actively religious describe themselves as “very happy,” compared with 25% of the inactively religious and 25% of the unaffiliated. Notable happiness gaps among these groups also exist in Japan, Australia and Germany.
I'm reading it as "Mom is suddenly being a religious hypocrite after a lifetime of devotion just to look good with her granddaughter in front of her new church pals." And to the tune of $10k.
Bingo. Not about the drinking, not about the monetary value. It's the hypocrisy. She was willing to lie to the church (parents werent practicing catholics, didn't get married in catholic church, aren't intending to go to church, etc.) to achieve her personal goal of baptism for granddaughter. So in the end, she valued her position within the group (having a baptised granddaughter, welcoming future people into the church) more than upholding the values of the church -- opposite as she's portrayed her relationship with the church for her entire life.
I don't particularly care for the values of the Church, so I am not even disturbed that she broke them. Just that she was willing to do such an about face.
I'm not trying to attack your stance, merely understand.
I'm still unsure of where you are concluding she threw away her personal convictions? Using their resources (cash) to your sister (impediment) to get their grandchild baptized (saved/go to heaven) seems pretty consistent to me.
Another way that could be concluded in a non-contradictory way seems that you mom could conclude that she used resources (parable of the talents) to facilitate the appropriate environment to discipleship her grand daughter to Christ?
The bible suggests to tithe 10%, so some interpret that as a devout Christian you have obligations to pay your way to heaven (as opposed to giving 10% to the church to redistribute to where there is need).
... Unless you mean the money was used for drunkenness which is a sinful nature? I mean, perhaps there are those who deal with that moral dilemma along the lines of saving one is better than losing all?
Again, apologies. I am not attacking your situation and I totally get that an overbearing religious family member sucks. I just don't get the contradiction and I'm having a hard time following the side conversation relating to it.
No problem, I think I adequately replied in quoting Trad ale's post.
Anecdotally, I successfully got my parents to stop paying the catholic church directly around a decade ago. Now they give their tithe to a variety of charities themselves, with a smaller amount going to specific religious missions.
It was a good compromise I thought. This is a good reminder that I should try to tactfully broach this subject with them again, as I suspect that my father's recent joining of KoC may push that back towards the church directly.
The Following User Says Thank You to Monahammer For This Useful Post:
There’s a wealth of data from around the world showing religious people are happier on average than the population at large.
Correlation does not indicate causation man.
Also this isn't terribly surprising, as other data has shown many times over that devoutly religious people aren't very smart, and less intelligent people are typically happier.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
I have never understood this, unless there really isn't a hell. I will never, ever stop questioning the story logic of an omnipotent "god" that creates us in his own image and then blames us for his mistakes.
Doesn't it actually make perfect sense? Christian theology says God gave everyone free will (religious or not), therefore God isn't responsible for the bad or good actions of anyone, its up to the individual. Your reward if you are generally a good person is eternal bliss. If you are generally a bad person, eternal damnation.
In Christian theology, God made the universe and we are living in it.
Also this isn't terribly surprising, as other data has shown many times over that devoutly religious people aren't very smart, and less intelligent people are typically happier.
Cliff is just here to provide balance, man. It's OK to participate in an organization that does horrible things, so long as you come out the other side happy.
Also this isn't terribly surprising, as other data has shown many times over that devoutly religious people aren't very smart, and less intelligent people are typically happier.
It's not that they're less intelligent. I used to kind of think that, but now I believe their brains have just been corrupted via indoctrination to have a blind spot that allows them to view reality through a lens that circumvents critical thought. I think the intelligent ones can be unindoctrinated if they allow themselves out of the insulated bubble that reinforces the indoctrination, but yeah, the simpleton-type ones will always believe the nonsense and maybe that allows them to sort of exist in an ignorance-is-bliss state.
The Following User Says Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
It's not that they're less intelligent. I used to kind of think that, but now I believe their brains have just been corrupted via indoctrination to have a blind spot that allows them to view reality through a lens that circumvents critical thought. I think the intelligent ones can be unindoctrinated if they allow themselves out of the insulated bubble that reinforces the indoctrination, but yeah, the simpleton-type ones will always believe the nonsense and maybe that allows them to sort of exist in an ignorance-is-bliss state.
The References section on this article is staggeringly large honestly.
Specifically the conclusions are what I noted; fairweather adherents/sunday service types don't have as pronounced of a corollary, but those who are "devout" are often notably lower scoring.
