Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Er. . .I guess my beliefs do get a little complicated. . .and maybe they have changed since last I posted here, or I just wasn't clear about them. Anyway, as far as believing in a supreme deity who created the world, I am an atheist. I don't believe in that sort of god. I don't believe in that sort of creation. In terms of "choosing not to worship him" it's more of me denying God's existence than anything else. Er. I hope that helps to clarify things a little, maybe?

. . .and thanks. . .it's good to be back

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yes, it does. Thanks.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

You mean I actually made sense for once? Really?!

Cannot wait for my classes next semester. I decided to minor in Religious Studies, because I find it so interesting, partly thanks to our discussions on this thread.

[Nerdanel]

I used to belong to the lutheran church of Finland, but the day I turned 18 I went to the office and after that I'm officially an ateist. But actually I'm not, I think. But I'm absolutely no Christian! What I think it's stupid in our religion is, that u get born into it. Your parents decide whether or not to be part of the Christian church. Well, my parents didn't get angry when I decided not to be a part of that church anymore, since they knew my opinion. But still they didn't let me get out of there before I was 18. But now I'm free!

To be part of a church means nothing to me. And I think it's better for the church, too, if those who don't believe stop being a part of the church. A strange thing is, that almost all my friends say they feel nothing for the Christian church. But they're still a part of it!

Is there the same sort of trend in your country, that that the number of those belonging to the church, is falling? Quickly?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Well, I think that organized religion has a tendency to get kind of scary. Like back in Europe a couple hundred years ago with the Papacy running things. . .and then that Luther guy came along. . . And in Japan, the temple at Mt. Hiei had their own huge army! Anyway.

You (Nerdanel) bring up a point about free choice. (and here I get to have fun because I just wrote a paper on Erasmus and Luther's debate on free will)

You talked about not liking being part of the Church just because your parents are. I personally believe that religion and faith don't really mean much if it's not out of a free choice to believe. If you've doubted God, it means all that much more when you do decide that you believe in god, and that you will be "good," (though that certainly does not go along with believing in god, in my opinion!) And then we get in to good vs. evil and whether or not you're going to heaven or hell, and Luther basically said that you don't have a choice, because it is a battle between God and Satan over your soul. Anyway, I just had a lot of fun with that essay. . .at least until I had to actually write it. . .er. . .Anyway, I just saw that as an excuse to bring up free will, which might have already been discussed; I don't know. But I'd like to know what other people think about that. Now I'm just rambling. . .I should stop now. . .er. . .

[Nerdanel]

Free will is part of our democracy. So I think, a child shouldn't be part of a religion at the second it's born. Have nothing more to say, so that's it.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

I agree. This is why I don't consider myself to be Jewish, and don't belong to a synagogue, nor am I Catholic. . .er. . .yeah. Free choice is good.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Free will is part of our democracy. So I think, a child shouldn't be part of a religion at the second it's born.

I suppose you should renounce your citizenship as well, after all it’s an affront to your “free will.”

The papacy running things? Do we even own a history book?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Well, not entirely on their own. More like fighting a lot with the aristocracy and kings and whatnot over power and fun stuff like that. never said the emporor was perfect either. . . And writing false documents about Constantine donating lands to the church in really awful Latin.

*simmers. boils. RAGE. calms down a bit.*

ouch. you have just crossed the WRONG person.

i know, i know. should not take offense. what would you know anyway?

i should ask the same question of you.

but in the future, to keep from accidentally letting slip near deadly insults, please be a little more polite, and i will try my best to refrain from blowing up at throwaway comments like that.

*snarl*

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Sorry, that was a bit harsh. I’ll be more polite next time. I can’t stand unsubstantiated generalizations, especially when they are false. I would like to hear your views on the papacy... historical, doctrinal, etc... and I promise to play nice.

--Dave

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

How nice of you. Hey, I don't like broad generalizations either, so, hey, I admit I was not right in saying that, at least not in a broad sense covering large amounts of complicated history. Just try not to insult people, even if they make silly little mistakes once in a while. It completely undermines your own legitimacy as well as making this an unpleasant place. And please, if I make any such mistakes by being insulting, it's probably unintentional and do tell me. I'd hate to be a hypocrite.

And don't write things off as completely false. . .I wouldn't say the papacy was ever in complete control of all of Europe, by no means, but they certainly had their times when they held a lot of power in a smaller area. Anyway, I don't claim to be anything of an expert on the papacy, or medieval Christianity in general, though I'm certainly hoping to learn more. That too would be an interesting discussion, which I'd be glad to participate in with you, so long as we can both be civil.

[Ellesime Ganascient]

Well i must admit i'm not sure if i know the words to explain...
well i usually call me Atheist but i DO believe there is something or someone who "started" the creation of everything but i don't think that any of the religion is really right...
Here in italy there a specifical word for this way of thinking "agnostica" but i think atheist is good anyway

[Nerdanel]

Agnostica. That's a good word!

I can't see no sence in deciding to what religion a baby belongs. Is the church trying to force people to be a member of theirs?

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Nerdanel,

I can't see no sence in deciding to what religion a baby belongs. Is the church trying to force people to be a member of theirs?

I really can’t, for the life of me, figure out what you mean. Are you saying that infant baptism means that the church is trying to force babies to be members?

--Dave

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Well, what I think Nerdanel means, if I may attempt, Nerdanel, is that it's not so much forcing a baby to be part of the church, but rather infant baptism makes them a part of the church before they are old enough to make an informed decision for themselves.

However, from the Church's perspective, it does make sense--you would want members, yes? And you wouldn't really want to give people other choices, right? Because then you lose members and somehow possibly even imply that *gasp* there are other options.

From a pro-freedom perspective, though, letting people wait until they're old enough to choose sounds more preferable to me. But hey, I had a Jewish naming ceremony, a bat mitzvah, and a "confirmation" sort of thing, and none of it means anything to me. So perhaps infant baptism doesn't have to necessarily mean it's binding you; you can still make a choice later.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Well, I can't speak for any other Churches, but...

The Catholic Church teaches that infants are born with original sin. Until the reach a certain age or maturity (generally called "the age of accountability", i.e. for sins), they cannot be eternally condemned, but rather go to Limbo, a place of perfect natural happiness, which is inferior to Heaven, a place of perfect supernatural happiness. When young children (or consenting adults) are baptized, it washes away original sin, as well as any other sins they may have committed. Therefore, the Catholic Church baptizes children because we believe that if the child should die before reaching the age of accountability (usually considered to be 7, IIRC), then this will allow the child to enter into the greater, supernatural happiness of Heaven. Infant Baptism does not mean that someone must follow the church's teachings all their life.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Well, I can't speak for any other Churches, but...

The Catholic Church teaches that infants are born with original sin. Until the reach a certain age or maturity (generally called "the age of accountability", i.e. for sins), they cannot be eternally condemned, but rather go to Limbo, a place of perfect natural happiness, which is inferior to Heaven, a place of perfect supernatural happiness. When young children (or consenting adults) are baptized, it washes away original sin, as well as any other sins they may have committed. Therefore, the Catholic Church baptizes children because we believe that if the child should die before reaching the age of accountability (usually considered to be 7, IIRC), then this will allow the child to enter into the greater, supernatural happiness of Heaven. Infant Baptism does not mean that someone must follow the church's teachings all their life.

I didn't think that Limob was an official teaching of the Church? Don't they say that we can't know what God, in His infinte goodness has in store for those who die before the age of reason withput being baptized?

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

From a pro-freedom perspective, though, letting people wait until they're old enough to choose sounds more preferable to me.

This doesn't follow, though. You wouldn't withhold food from a baby just because she didn't make a free choice to eat. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, baptism provides something more than just food or physical life, but eternal life. Would it be right for us to withhold the life giving food of baptism?

There's no attempt to take away a child's freedom here. If you hold that there is, then the same logic would apply to parental indoctrination, public education, etc. Children are forced to do things all the time... and I do have the distinct memory of being forced to go to school against my will when I was in 3rd grade.

--Dave

The Catholic Church does not doctrinally recognize the existence of Limbo, but neither does the Catholic Church dismiss the possibility. What we know for sure is that only baptism by water and the spirit can bring us to new life in Christ, and, thus, baptism is necessary for salvation.

However, the Church has traditionally held that baptism by desire is possible, especially in the case of a catechumen who might die before completing the process leading up to baptism. From the earliest sources, the funeral rites for individuals who died under these circumstances attest that they might have, by the merits of their desire, received the same graces conferred in baptism.

Such a baptism by desire can be applied to those infants who have died prior to baptism. It can be argued that human beings, while still carrying the mark and stain of original sin, are not affected by either the stain or mark before the age of accountability. In other words, the guilt of original sin can not be understood by an infant, and concupiscence can have no power over an infant. Thus, the infant is in a state of developmental innocence, and in such a state of innocence the child would naturally desire only what is good. So it can be said that an infant that dies without baptism can benefit from a baptism of desire.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Eruviel, you wrote:

However, from the Church's perspective, it does make sense--you would want members, yes? And you wouldn't really want to give people other choices, right? Because then you lose members and somehow possibly even imply that *gasp* there are other options.

Am I discerning a hint of cynicism?

I’ve thought and thought about my reply to this statement, Eruviel, and nearly thought about not replying at all, especially in light of my impolite statements above. But, frankly, I don’t see anything polite in your obvious innuendo in regard to a whole group of people, a group to which I belong and am an active member. Putting down religions is putting down particular people... of course the PC crowd is unwilling to admit this. I try very hard to understand others, especially their religious beliefs, mainly because everyone's beliefs have some to offer to strengthen my own beliefs. I don't attack others for being atheists, though I'll represent my own position, and I'll definitely defend my faith when it is cynically represented.

Its not a numbers game. If it was, then the RCIA process would be much shorter and easier.

In the end there are only two options: life or death. No one in the church to which I belong forces anyone to choose one or the other. That’s up to each individual person, whether they are a member of the Church or not. The Church to which I belong does not force parents to bring their babies to church to be baptized. Parents seem to make that decision, themselves. The Church to which I belong doesn’t even force people to come church if they don’t want. How can it? Are there church police?

The Church I belong to gives guidance by presenting, bravely and openly, what the Gospels have to say about God and humanity, about the world around us, and how to live in this world, even when the world disagrees. The Church gives guidance by teaching and instructing, by providing efficacious grace through the sacraments through the power of the Holy Spirit. But ultimately its entirely up to each person to either heed or reject this guidance and grace.

So I fail to see how the Church to which I belong limits anyone’s freedom. On the other hand, this Church provides her members with even greater freedom, by bringing to focus the choices that one must make in life and grace to strengthen their spirits.

With sincere regards,
Dave

[brownjenkins]

there are many churches which do not allow their members to choose, and ones that do coerce children into becoming and staying members... this may be a source of some of the cynicism... personal experience with such groups has soured me on religion to a certain extent

that said, the mainstream catholic church, as well as all the other major faiths i have been exposed to, do not force their religion on people... i was baptised and haven't been to church more than two or three times since, and as far as i know they aren't trying to track me down