Pope on gays : "Who am I to judge?"

[grumbler]

Why is that necessary?

Indeed.  Religion seems to me to be like other subjective concerns like "beauty."  It isn't necessary to ban it from consideration as an important element of society, so long as its "believers" don't make the mistake of believing that their standards should be binding on me or anyone else.

[Berkut]

I ahve to agree with grumbler, although I don't think what he is saying is really in contravention to what was said before, per se.


"Iteration" is a process that is understood to be ongoing - at some particular interation, it is understood that it is just a better point in the process, unless you've reached your pre-defined goal.

Religiion does not work that way. Rather, it is generally the case that the religion will claim that whatever the point it is at now in regards to some issue, is the goal. Homosexuality is a terrible sin. This was "true" for a long time, and when it was true, it was never conceded that in some future iteration it would not be true.

Unbelievers can and often should be burned at the stake. This was true, and it was never the case while it was true that those who said it was true knew that this was some transitional state to some greater truth, where burning people to death would be a bad idea.

Iteration implies intent to iterate, not just something that happens to occur. It is a defined process.

It is a grumblerism to point out this semantic difference, but in this case I think it is actually a very critical semantic difference that actually drives right to the heart of what is being discussed.

[grumbler]

That's the definition of grumblerism, Berkut:  cutting through the bullshit to focus on the heart of the issue.

Some people hate that, I know.  You are a practitioner (though I think we call in Berkutism when you do it).

[Barrister]

Indeed.

Which creates an entire host of problems in and of itself, of course.

And makes the rational ecessity of religion rather suspect.

After all, if our understanding has changed so much over time, then surely it is ridiciulous to assume that our *current* understanding is the "right" one, in which case...what is the point? We know that the current "understanding" filtered through religion is going to be wrong once society or science decides it is wrong, so why bother with the religious filter to begin with?

The point of religion (well, at least any thinking man's religion) isn't that it's an instruction manual - do x, y and z and get into heaven.  It's about the struggle to be closer to God.  It's the journey, not the destination, that matters.  From a more Christian perspective, we're all sinners.  It's not that we follow religion and we will be perfect - we won't.  It's that we try to be perfect.

And I don't think I agree with the notion that religion inherently, inevitably just follows secular society.  Does it do that sometimes?  Absolutely.  But there are messages and lessons from religion that are still very much at odds with almost all of secular society.  The ideas of anti-materialism, of submission to a higher power / greater good, the idea to turn the other cheek and love your neighbor as yourself... those messages you don't really get from secular society very much.

[Barrister]

That's the definition of grumblerism, Berkut:  cutting through the bullshit to focus on the heart of the issue.

[The Brain]

From an adult perspective religion is silly.

[grumbler]

From an adult perspective religion is silly.

So is wine tasting.  But if someone wants to engage in religion or wine-tasting, who are we to say no?

[The Brain]

From an adult perspective religion is silly.

So is wine tasting.  But if someone wants to engage in religion or wine-tasting, who are we to say no?

What a retarded thing to say.

[The Brain]

That shut him up.

[Eddie Teach]

Wine-tasting is silly. You need more than just a taste to get hammered.

[grumbler]

The point of religion (well, at least any thinking man's religion) isn't that it's an instruction manual - do x, y and z and get into heaven.  It's about the struggle to be closer to God.  It's the journey, not the destination, that matters.  From a more Christian perspective, we're all sinners.  It's not that we follow religion and we will be perfect - we won't.  It's that we try to be perfect.

I think that the issue of sin in the Christian faiths (such as I understand it) is probably a good illustration of your larger point; once, the emphasis seemed to be that everyone was a sinner because of "original sin."  Nowadays, the emphasis seems to be that everyone is a sinner because that's just human nature.  In other words, the issue of "God made us perfect, but one man blundered and so we are all being punished, and we have to hope God forgives us for Adam's mistake" has been replaced by "it is no one's fault, we are the way we are, and we try to rise above our natures."

I am not sure that anyone can argue with a straight face that the modern view is "better" in an objective sense (though you could argue that my characterization of it is wrong), but it certainly is more understandable to the modern audience.  Nowadays, we don't tolerate the whole "corruption of the blood" idea that once informed not just religion, but secular punishment.

[DGuller]

That shut him up.

You jinxed it. 

[garbon]

No.  Simply repeating a process over and over again is not iterating.  You stated earlier that Buddhism's divisions into sects was, to you, a sign of iteration.  It isn't, because iteration doesn't mean dividing.

You missed my second sentence then where I pointed out that it is to refine understanding. I think the division could show that (I don't know enough about the development of Buddhism to speak fully on that though) as in the process of refining, there are often groups that don't agree with the "new" understanding and splinter away.

[garbon]

I ahve to agree with grumbler, although I don't think what he is saying is really in contravention to what was said before, per se.


"Iteration" is a process that is understood to be ongoing - at some particular interation, it is understood that it is just a better point in the process, unless you've reached your pre-defined goal.

Religiion does not work that way. Rather, it is generally the case that the religion will claim that whatever the point it is at now in regards to some issue, is the goal. Homosexuality is a terrible sin. This was "true" for a long time, and when it was true, it was never conceded that in some future iteration it would not be true.

Unbelievers can and often should be burned at the stake. This was true, and it was never the case while it was true that those who said it was true knew that this was some transitional state to some greater truth, where burning people to death would be a bad idea.

Iteration implies intent to iterate, not just something that happens to occur. It is a defined process.

It is a grumblerism to point out this semantic difference, but in this case I think it is actually a very critical semantic difference that actually drives right to the heart of what is being discussed.

Maybe but I don't know that it needs to be undertaken consciously.  Is there a word for iteration when it was not intended but simply progressed that way?

[merithyn]

Indeed.

Which creates an entire host of problems in and of itself, of course.

And makes the rational ecessity of religion rather suspect.

After all, if our understanding has changed so much over time, then surely it is ridiciulous to assume that our *current* understanding is the "right" one, in which case...what is the point? We know that the current "understanding" filtered through religion is going to be wrong once society or science decides it is wrong, so why bother with the religious filter to begin with?

To me, that's like saying, "Why bother asking why? You'll never get the right answer." That may be true, but in asking the question, I'm considering the possibilities. Religion may not give The Answer, but it does, when done well, offer people the opportunity to think about the question(s). That's an equally intrical part of religion, imo, as trying to find The Answer.

Viking and Tamas are fundamentally right - there is a very basic problem with the claims that religious beliefs ought to inform our actions, while at the same time accepting that those religious beliefs are not in fact the product of some form of external revelation in some fashion, but simply the consequences of societal norms. Why not just let the societal norms coupled with out personal views and perceptions inform our actions, and leave the religion out of it?

That's an option for some. For others, it isn't. No one is saying that religion is right for everyone, though Viking and Tamas seem to be claiming that a lack of religion should be.

The only justification for letting religion into the mix is the claim, at some level, that there is some kind of external validity to religion outside of human experience, in which case, why is it changing almost exactly and predictably in lock step with a changing human society and scientific understanding of reality?

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Given that our understanding shifts and changes based on the external compass shared by society, it makes sense that our religions will do the same. We're not locked into using religion alone as our moral compass, and in learning from many sources, we're better able to find better/different understanding of our religions.

I don't know if that really answers this, though, as I'm not 100% sure of your question.

The Pope now says, to some degree or another, that gays are a-ok. At least compared to how they were seen in the past. This is entirely predictable as a obvious change in the Church in response to changing cultural norms. This is no more "interesting" from that perspective than the Mormons eventually deciding that black people are ok, or the Catholics deciding that the earth really does revolve around the Sun. The data the churches are operating from from a religious perspective has not changed one bit. Their "understanding" has changed, but that understanding on these kinds of issues *always* lags societal or scientific change, so the claim that the change is a function of something other than the overall society is pretty hard to buy into.

Actually, what the pope said was that we shouldn't focus on whether gays are a-ok or not (as stated in the Bible). What we should be doing instead is focusing on love thy neighbor, care for one another, and live your life the best that you can (also in the Bible).

Basically, what he's doing is changing the focus of his religion, not the content of it. There has always been (and I predict always will be) discourse on where to focus one's energies in life as predicated by the Bible. For the last several hundred years, the popes have tended toward judgment and damning. Now there's a pope who's trying to shift things to the other side of the coin. That's always been there, it's just been a very long time since the Catholic church has had a leader who chose that focus.