![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jamesqOne of the nice things about not being Roman Catholic is that I don't have to listen to the church. A lot of people want the church to liberalize so that they can continue to be good catholics while enjoying what modern sensibilities have to offer.
I can go on and on about the papacy, but at the end of the day, nothing the Pope says or does is going to change my personal behavior. I try to be a moral person because I think it's right and I don't need a mythological figure to tell me it's right.
I am an athiest. It was a sticking point with my parents. My mom, for example, thought that I should have gone to sunday school and church more. I suspect this would have accelerated my objections to organized religion rather than halted them.
I wish that these people would take the last few steps. It's not hard to go from being a "bad catholic" to being a good protestant - The only thing that the Roman Catholic church has to offer that the other Christian churches don't is the actual hierarchy of the church itself. An Episcopal wedding is just as valid as a Roman Catholic one. A Lutheran funeral will still get you into the ground just fine. An Anglican priest can hear your confession.
The objection has always been that these are false churchs and that The Roman Catholic church is the One True Way™. Of course, ever other church claims it's the One True Way™.
To paraphrase The Incredibles "When everyone is special, no one will be".
That was the moment when I realized that religion doesn't matter. Oh, I still believed in God, I just figured that a just and loving god wasn't going to doom people to an eternity of damnation for the crime of being Unitarian. A lot of people agree with me. They go to their churches and think of it as a lifestyle choice.
But take it a step further, like I did:
1) Each church says they're the One True Way™
2) None of them are
ergo, all churches are wrong and therefore fallible. Once you've chimed in to the fact that all churches are fallible, then you can question all of their core assumptions. It's like the Levitican rules - Why is it important to ban homosexuality if you don't follow the ban on shellfish or the ban on poly-cotton blend shirts? To me, once you've decided that one of the rules is silly, then all of them are. Poof, there goes the whole bible. We're left with a collection of books written by men for their own purposes that we're still reading today.
That's when I became agnostic. I had no idea what the nature of god was and neither did anyone else.
I've seen people go through all the same steps as I did. Irshad Manji for example, who questioned Islam something fierce. She saw all the same evidence and came within a hair's-breadth of coming to the same conclusions as I did. Why didn't she take the last step? I don't know. I don't know why more people don't. Maybe it's the strength of the indoctrination - the fear that if you're wrong, you're going to hell. Pascal's Wager writ large.
Then I started applying my agnosticism in a broader way - If I'm unconvinced that the Christian God exists, then shouldn't I also be unconvinced that Santa Claus exists, or Cthulhu, or the god of a long dead civilization of sentient artichokes in the Andromeda galaxy? it gets a little silly when you realize that there are an infinite number of things to be agnostic about.
From a skeptic's point of view it's better to simply assume they're all nonexistent until such time as you find proof for something. That's when I became an atheist.
So what if Benedict digs his heels in and declares war on western values. It could go one of two ways:
1) he wins, driving more people away from the church onto the path that leads, ultimately, to me.
2) he loses, the church modernizes. I like the idea of a more progressive church.
What he can't do is turn back the clock. The ideas are out there and people know what they are. I'm sure the church would like everyone to be good little drones. This can only happen through force, and the only thing the church can do to you is threaten you. Hollow threats ultimately.
I can go on and on about the papacy, but at the end of the day, nothing the Pope says or does is going to change my personal behavior. I try to be a moral person because I think it's right and I don't need a mythological figure to tell me it's right.
I am an athiest. It was a sticking point with my parents. My mom, for example, thought that I should have gone to sunday school and church more. I suspect this would have accelerated my objections to organized religion rather than halted them.
I wish that these people would take the last few steps. It's not hard to go from being a "bad catholic" to being a good protestant - The only thing that the Roman Catholic church has to offer that the other Christian churches don't is the actual hierarchy of the church itself. An Episcopal wedding is just as valid as a Roman Catholic one. A Lutheran funeral will still get you into the ground just fine. An Anglican priest can hear your confession.
The objection has always been that these are false churchs and that The Roman Catholic church is the One True Way™. Of course, ever other church claims it's the One True Way™.
To paraphrase The Incredibles "When everyone is special, no one will be".
That was the moment when I realized that religion doesn't matter. Oh, I still believed in God, I just figured that a just and loving god wasn't going to doom people to an eternity of damnation for the crime of being Unitarian. A lot of people agree with me. They go to their churches and think of it as a lifestyle choice.
But take it a step further, like I did:
1) Each church says they're the One True Way™
2) None of them are
ergo, all churches are wrong and therefore fallible. Once you've chimed in to the fact that all churches are fallible, then you can question all of their core assumptions. It's like the Levitican rules - Why is it important to ban homosexuality if you don't follow the ban on shellfish or the ban on poly-cotton blend shirts? To me, once you've decided that one of the rules is silly, then all of them are. Poof, there goes the whole bible. We're left with a collection of books written by men for their own purposes that we're still reading today.
That's when I became agnostic. I had no idea what the nature of god was and neither did anyone else.
I've seen people go through all the same steps as I did. Irshad Manji for example, who questioned Islam something fierce. She saw all the same evidence and came within a hair's-breadth of coming to the same conclusions as I did. Why didn't she take the last step? I don't know. I don't know why more people don't. Maybe it's the strength of the indoctrination - the fear that if you're wrong, you're going to hell. Pascal's Wager writ large.
Then I started applying my agnosticism in a broader way - If I'm unconvinced that the Christian God exists, then shouldn't I also be unconvinced that Santa Claus exists, or Cthulhu, or the god of a long dead civilization of sentient artichokes in the Andromeda galaxy? it gets a little silly when you realize that there are an infinite number of things to be agnostic about.
From a skeptic's point of view it's better to simply assume they're all nonexistent until such time as you find proof for something. That's when I became an atheist.
So what if Benedict digs his heels in and declares war on western values. It could go one of two ways:
1) he wins, driving more people away from the church onto the path that leads, ultimately, to me.
2) he loses, the church modernizes. I like the idea of a more progressive church.
What he can't do is turn back the clock. The ideas are out there and people know what they are. I'm sure the church would like everyone to be good little drones. This can only happen through force, and the only thing the church can do to you is threaten you. Hollow threats ultimately.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-21 03:25 am (UTC)But you tell me, does the RC church allow any of these western values within it's own hierarchy? They used to - prior to JPII there was a healthy diversity of opinions in the church. John XXIII was certainly a pope that wanted an open dialog within the church, and he went so far as to call an ecumenical council to discuss liberalizing the church. This ended up being Vatican II.
In the 60's and 70's there was talk of going even further than Vatican II - possibly even relaxing the rules on birth control (John VI had equated all birth control with being equivalent to murder). Our current Pope (with the blessings of JPII) was the man in charge of quashing that movement, and he was very successful. Doesn't sound like they have tolerance for opposing views to me. Corollary: Followers of religion have nothing of value to say about atheists. Yet there they are pointing to the rising rate of atheism in western society as a sign of the coming apocalypse. They also have a disturbing tendency of trying to proselytize me when I'm minding my own business at the bus stop. C'est la Vie.
Besides, where is it written that an atheist can't care about his fellow man? I honestly think that the world will be a better place if either more people leave the church or the church liberalizes. If I'm not allowed to voice that opinion, I've yet to hear a compelling reason why.Except that Jesus wanted Peter to be head of the church. The papacy is simply the extension of that church into modern times. He didn't say "You (Peter) are the head of my church on Earth, except for a couple of islands in the North Atlantic - I'm giving that to the Archbishop of Canterbury".
But my point was that people who are born into one church, are raised to believe that it is the correct church, then leave for another church, do so for good reasons. The reasoning boils down to "I think my current church is wrong about topic X". Well they can't be correct and wrong at the same time now can they? The act of changing churches means that the person has started to question. My questions led me to atheism. Other's questions may not lead them there, but I know for a fact that not questioning their beliefs isn't going to do it.
Some stick their toe in the water and other's dive right in.My post was simply telling how I got to my current point in live. It was a bit of personal history explaining why I pay attention to matters of religion, despite being an atheist.
According to you I'm uninformed and non-educated. Leaving aside the fact that such a statement is fairly patronizing, what does it mean? Is there an error in fact or logic in my post? Would you prefer it if I put up a needless disclaimer proclaiming my blog to be my opinion?
Getting over it would be a good idea
Date: 2005-04-21 12:32 pm (UTC)One of the reasons I enjoy reading your blog is that I know you rarely spout misinformation, and when you do you are quick to concede if proven wrong.
This is also why I rarely argue with you, and when I do have a difference of opinion I make sure I research before debating with you (one of the many ways I have changed). One subject I would not argue with you on is religious (i.e. christian) facts. Those who know you also know that you have researched this subject extensively. Those who don't would find it in there best interest to discuss with you rather than condem.
Troy
Re: Getting over it would be a good idea
Date: 2005-04-21 07:51 pm (UTC)Re: Getting over it would be a good idea
Date: 2005-04-22 08:36 am (UTC)Well said James, well said...
Thwap!