h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Someone who is in the habit of committing the same sins, time after time, and is happy with the idea that repeating a mantra wipes the sin slate clean probably wouldn't get too sticky about their god demanding a certain degree of intellectual dishonesty.

Ha! You make me laugh! But you raise a good point: much of religion does seem to be about achieving some sort of, for lack of a better term, "comfort." It can be used as a soothing balm. Or, as someone once said, as the opiate of the masses.

The trick is just not to think about it too much!

Yes. That is what's called "fundamentalism'>

JCNS: "suppose that you just accepted a measly one percent of church teachings, should you still then expect to receive 100 percent of the "benefits" ... of being a believer? What exactly is the point or the goal of being a believer, and how does being a "selective" believer affect the outcome?"

I think you're coming at this from the wrong angle. Let us posit a thinking Catholic, someone who neither accepts nor rejects beliefs on the basis of whether he likes the sound of them. Okay.

He looks at what the Catholic Church teaches, and decides that there are some aspects which just don't make sense to him, or which do not conform to the 'real world' as he sees it. So he rejects those teachings. For whatever reason, he accepts the rest. And he accepts enough to feel comfortable calling himself by the label 'Roman Catholic'.

Now, this is going to get tricky without introducing a concrete example. Let's say that Tony believes everything else the Church teaches, but think's it's got it wrong on contraception. He thinks that God does not view contraception as a sin, and that the Church made a mistake in ascribing that view to God.

He now lives his life in accordance with his beliefs. And he may well expect a reward. This is rational and internally consistent (almost: one problem with it is explained later on).

If, on the other hand, he thought that the Church was right in everything it taught, and yet decided to use contraception because that made life easier for him, he may expect a reduced reward. That too would be a rational expectation.



And the quibble: One of the Church's teachings is that it is the earthly representative of God. So you should do what it says, even if it's wrong. But that won't trouble many people.

TRiG.

Any classification of belief systems that is relatively broad will contain people who disagree with each other about some aspects of it, but provided they have a lot of beliefs in common there is no real problem in them giving themselves and others the same label.

On the other hand if I shared no distinctive beliefs with other believers in the "same" belief system my labelling of myself would probably be questioned by others who used the same label.

Noggin

<<>

Now there you go including spacemen ... why not fairies at the back of the garden while you're at it? The usual thang.>


Spacemen: Scientology; basis of.



George Bush; God telling him to invade Iraq; Islamic suicide bombers in London.

etc.

No, some Astonomers who hijacked the last day of Conference decided it was not a proper planet.

However, all that has happened is the day before a lump of rock was called a planet. The next day the same lump of rock was called a Dwarf-Planet.

There is no 'belief' involved in it. You can define it as what you want but it does not chage the fact that the big lump of rock will still be there doing what it has done for billions of years and will do even if we reclassify it as 'a Gerald'.



Actually, you can see clouds of electrons when you use the right type of microscope. I did put up a picture a few years ago but I can't find it any more.

But once again, electrons or whatever else they might be just carry on being what they are not bothering anyone.

When it comes to 'ideas' like Limbo, it does affect peoples belief and actions. Many Catholic children spent alot of their time praying for the souls of babies stuck in Limbo and now limbo does not exist so what a waste of their time.

I can understand people looking at a religion and saying "I like *these* rituals, *these* rules, and *these* principles, and will follow them, but I'm not sure about *those* things", in the same way someone can be a member of a political party without agreeing with all the official positions.

If someone is going to say "My take on religion X works for me as a lifestyle", then picking and choosing which bits of X to follow seems pretty justifiable in that context. However, *if* that person was actually going to start arguing that the bits they chose to believe in were Right (rather than Useful) or More Right than other interpretations, they'd seem to be on pretty dubious ground.

"No, some Astonomers who hijacked the last day of Conference decided it was not a proper plane"

Whaaat? THey just stood up and arbitrarily held a vote? Then how did everyone know it was coming? THen how did the new definition of planet get widespread notice *prior* to the conference?

YAY!! ANother scientisit conspiracy theory!!! They're so much fun.

What actually happened. Hardly a conspiracy theory.

What for 90% of the people to leave the conference. Make a vote at the end with the 10% left there and of which that 10% is 4% of the worlds main astronomers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5283956.stm

Speaking of fairies in the garden, apparently it's illegal in Greece to worship the Olympian gods.

http://www.greekgodslegal.co.uk/

From that greekgods site: "The disposal of our own human remains after death"

That would be a neat trick...

Thank Zeus I live in Canada, where one can worship/not worship whatever one wants.

In uni we used to hang out with a few Greek students. One guy showed me the Greek national ID card they were all required to carry. As if that wasn't bad enough, it had their religion on it too!

Ste

A few years ago the Prime Minister suggested to make new ID cards with this piece of information removed. This resulted in a huge uproar amongst the local clergy

In Spain we have a photo ID national identity card which is very handy - especially as I no longer hold a valid driving license or anything else other than my passport with a photo on it.

No religion requirement. Just a photo, your name and address and a fingerprint - and a signature. As I say, really handy as it is credit card size and fits into your wallet (unlike a passport). And I really don't mind certain shops asking me for photo ID when I use my credit card as I feel this helps protect me from fraud. Also, if I lose it, it doesn't cost anything to replace, unlike my passport (70 euros!).

And we are not required to carry it *at all times*.

az

Regarding the whole "a la carte Catholic" idea, and whether you can be a Catholic and pick and choose which bits of Catholic doctrine you want to believe - the Church itself teaches that you can indeed do just that. There is no compulsion whatsoever to believe everything Pope Bendydick or St Augustine or anyone else teaches.

"Catechism of the Catholic Church", paragraph 1782:

'1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."'

Well said, King Bomba.

I think I posted here earlier that most Catholics I know here in Spain don't actually recognise The Pope as someone they need to listen to when it comes to their day-to-day lives. And quite a few I know actually really dislike what he puts forth and consider him to be a bit of an idiot. But they still consider themselves Catholics nonetheless.


az

Yes, interesting that. I remember being in Rome when I was younger and I was asked by a friend from the UK if I felt that going to the Vatican was a big thing for me as a Catholic. I said no - it was just where the Pope lived. I think a lot of Catholics have the same view. It's a strange religion in many ways, in that the extremes both exist within the same religious body, and yet have very little in common with each other apart from the most basic things concerning the religion itself.

The Pope is not considered to be infallible except regarding the status weird unprovable things. Much of the criticism of the Pope and the Vatican has come from within the clergy themselves (although it has to be said that they get a much harder time from the Vatican than normal people).

Of the Catholics I know, I think some may be in awe if they went to the Vatican, but for purely non-religious reasons - art, architecture and so on.