Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry for the delayed reply, I've been busy the last few days.
Yes I understand. It's a heavy work day today and I don't have time to fully respond.
I will simply say that you seem to have communism conflated with atheism. I am not a communist and neither, I suspect, are any other atheists here. And Harry's point is absolutely spot on. Stalin wore pants too, and we don't blame the pants for his atrocities.
Atheism has no political affinity. I have met atheists who are conservatives and libertarians, etc. Also many who work hard for the benefit and preservation of democracy.
So this sort of nebulous slippery-slope argument that atheism leads inevitably to some ultimate totalitarian state is a lot of rhetoric you have listened to uncritically.
Your other main point seems to be that eastern orthodoxy is somehow unique in having an emphasis on experiencing god as opposed to reading or learning about him. For example, although they probably have a somewhat different emphasis, pentecostals / charismatics have the same emphasis on personal experience.
God is supposed to be both immanent and transcendent. Immanence means he is knowable and graspable. I argue against Immanence on the basis that "facts" or characteristics of gods are asserted without evidence, therefore, invisible gods aren't intersubjectively knowable, inherently. In so far as transcending the human condition is concerned, temporary perceived transcendence is possible, but I am unaware of anyone who has fully and actually and sustainably transcended human frailty, ego, hubris and ignorance. Perhaps you simply mean having some sense of connection to god, mediated of course by your religion of choice -- that would be a less ambitious goal. Here I have to say, if you have such a sense of connection and it enriches your life, go for it. I strove for that for many years to no avail, but that doesn't mean either that you couldn't succeed or that I'd begrudge you that success.
But to the point of this thread, I see nothing unique or new in eastern orthodoxy on these topics, and do not see that you have substantiated your claims of a unique ability for it to bring an experience of god or even more generically, of the divine. Sorry.
The persecution of the church happened before, during and after Stalin. In fact much of the initial machine gunning of priests/monks and dynamiting of churches happened under Lenin.
Which is ignoring the persecution was not because they were religious, it was because 1) they opposed the ruling power base, and 2) they had been part of the ruling power base that had abused the working class.
And that is why the religious and non-religious were persecuted, because they were against the ruling power base, not because of atheism. There is nothing in atheism that says persecute others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by illumined
Your Greek ethics assertion is problematic for many reasons but one of them is that it was a crime not to pay sufficient respect to the gods. That's quite a contradiction there.
An irrelevant non-contradiction that ignores that the Greek philosophers wrote many works about morality, and why we should be moral. That is a fact, not an assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by illumined
No. It's to live in a system as though it was a religion, this is what Marxism was.
Except you was talking about atheism, not Marxism. So why do atheists have to live as though we had a religion in order to function?
Would you please define "papal infallibility" as you understand it, and explain why it discredits Catholicism for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by illumined
Excellent question. I'm just going to quote from Wikipedia which quotes the definition from Vatican I:
Quote:
the Roman Pontiff (the Pope alone or with the College of Bishops)
speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, (in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,) he defines a doctrine
concerning faith or morals
to be held by the whole Church.[10]
So basically, the Pope can't be wrong.
Thanks for responding.
No, that's not "basically" it at all. Papal infallibility only applies under certain very limited conditions, and there are also questions about it that have not yet been defined by the Church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by illumined
However no one seriously believed anything like this in the first thousand years of the church. This is a serious problem because it completely contradicts what the church teaches about the Fall of Man, that no one can be perfect except Jesus because Jesus is both God and Man. For me this was only the tip of the iceberg, later I found more issues with their doctrines. Here's a good video that summarizes at least some of the big ones.
The Pope can be wrong, and the Pope is not perfect. You have created a straw man and a caricature of Catholic doctrine.
Atheism has no political affinity. I have met atheists who are conservatives and libertarians, etc. Also many who work hard for the benefit and preservation of democracy.
Atheism absolutely does have a political affinity - that being anti-Catholic.
Have you ever met an atheist who believes in Catholic monarchy or Catholic republicanism?
Atheism absolutely does have a political affinity - that being anti-Catholic.
Have you ever met an atheist who believes in Catholic monarchy or Catholic republicanism?
Atheism is only the disbelief in the existence of God (or any god). Why should a person who does not believe God exists believe in a Catholic monarchy (whatever that is) or Catholic republicanism (whatever that is)?
Atheism is only the disbelief in the existence of God (or any god). Why should a person who does not believe God exists believe in a Catholic monarchy (whatever that is) or Catholic republicanism (whatever that is)?
I'm glad to see that you agree with me that atheism does have a political affinity - that affinity being away from the Kingship of Christ.
Atheism absolutely does have a political affinity - that being anti-Catholic.
Have you ever met an atheist who believes in Catholic monarchy or Catholic republicanism?
Then you are anti every other religion and anti-atheist. Have you ever met any other religion that believes in a Catholic monarchy or Catholic republicanism?
Then you and your atheist friends should have no problem acknowledging that Christ is King, and submitting to His rule.
I often have a hard time fathoming the existence of people such as yourself in 2023. It's just such an anachronism
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
