Are you religious ?

[Lagun]

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

No. None of that. It's just that you have to know that we believers have already explained our Faith millions of times, without being understood, and we maybe have given up the idea of "enlighting" the others. After all, our time of speech is so reduced in comparison to the atheistic medias...

In my opinion the question is not to believe or not to believe, as that is personal and cannot and does not need to be rationalized. If you have faith you believe, and thats the end of the question.

I do not think one must be explaining why does one have faith. You simply have it or you do not have it, and if you have it you are blessed, because many things are explained and "everything turns to be more comprehensible".

My interest is: what is relevant about Christianism? The religious message for which who follows the steps and becomes a good Christian will find it´s way in Heven or the social message, in terms of the civic values that underline Christianity? And in any case, the debate would be, could they coexist separately?

[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by Lagun

My interest is: what is relevant about Christianism? The religious message for which who follows the steps and becomes a good Christian will find it´s way in Heven or the social message, in terms of the civic values that underline Christianity? And in any case, the debate would be, could they coexist separately?

OK Lagun, I finally get your point. Well, I think that the religious and social "messages" cannot coexist separately, in any case. The Christian society that you are talking about is the consequence, the product of the Christian behaviour of its people. If you eradicate Christianism, eventually some Christian values will subsist for a certain time, in something we call "cultural Christianism", then they will fade. It takes Christians to make a Christian world. With agnosticists and atheists you will only have relativism first, then submission to the first conqueror that will knock at your door (in our case, Islam). I can't see any European reconquistas without a solid re-Christianization of our old world.

[Lagun]

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

OK Lagun, I finally get your point. Well, I think that the religious and social "messages" cannot coexist separately, in any case. The Christian society that you are talking about is the consequence, the product of the Christian behaviour of its people. If you eradicate Christianism, eventually some Christian values will subsist for a certain time, in something we call "cultural Christianism", then they will fade. It takes Christians to make a Christian world. With agnosticists and atheists you will only have relativism first, then submission to the first conqueror that will knock at your door (in our case, Islam). I can't see any European reconquistas without a solid re-Christianization of our old world.

I belive you could be right.
I personaly like the concept of Christian values, I share them and I transmit them to my children as I believe they are part of my heritage, of our common European heritage. But I have always have doubts about their perdurability in the case that they were disconnected from the Religious "message". I would like to hear more opinions about this.

[Martín Zalacaín]

Originally Posted by Lagun

My interest is: what is relevant about Christianism? The religious message for which who follows the steps and becomes a good Christian will find it´s way in Heven or the social message, in terms of the civic values that underline Christianity? And in any case, the debate would be, could they coexist separately?

Originally Posted by Lagun

But I have always have doubts about their perdurability in the case that they were disconnected from the Religious "message

They cannot exist on their own. I think this has been proved by History. In the abscence of a supramundane reality (God), values fade away. In the absence of sacred laws issued by a God, morals cease to exist. Why should you care about your fellow man when there's no supramundane reality you can woship by caring about your fellow man? Why should you care about your people, your heritage, your traditions, your culture, ... anything? Why souldn't you go to the shopphing mall to buy something you don't need just because it feels good, then get drunk to numb your anxiety, etc? After all, if there's no God, why sould you care about anything that's not your own pleasure?

That's what's relevant about religion. While spirituality works the personal level, you need organized religion if you want society to function. You need your nation to believe in the same God(s) that you believe in, because this would result in them holding the same values that you hold. Society based on secular laws, where everything is based on reason, on a "social contract", leads to atomization, leads to a situation in which people just care about thriving, about their own benefit.

If you accept what I just said (belief in a supramundane reality = healthy society), you will probably have to accept that christianity is relevant, as it is the religion that has moulded our spirits during hundreds of years. There's no way to return to our "pagan roots" on a social level. In the spanish case: Who do oppose to abortion (80.000 abortions per year only in Spain)? True catholics. Who do oppose to homosexual marriage and the consequent erradication of the traditional family structure? True catholics. Who do have the highest number of sons per marriage? True catholics.

This leads me to the most relevant question nowadays on this respect: is it feasible a re-evangelization of society, so the christian cosmovision would be again at the core of our nation, and hence the altruistic values return?

[Lagun]

Originally Posted by Gonzalvus

After all, if there's no God, why sould you care about anything that's not your own pleasure?

That's what's relevant about religion.

I have many times thought about this. And in fact this is the real point I intended to discuss when I aproached Phenton.

I have met many people that being deeply atheist, had on the other hand, very strong social values. Furthermore I have known people that claimed to be "perfect Catholics" ("de misa diaria" as we say in Spain), and then fail terribly as individuals, having no social values what so ever,and being what we could call "selfish money lovers".

My doubt is of course what Savorgnan said, which I will resume in: "this atheists - cultural christians- are socialy focused because they have a Christian back round, but, if this back round keeps on geting weeker in time, the next generations of "atheists" will be simply that, and will with time look for a new "truth"."

On the other hand, you could claim that their could be perdurable atheists, socialy focused with Christian values, based in the sense of RESPONSIBILITY towards their society, their homeland, their people, and that to get that it is just a matter of education. This people could claim that they do not need to feel that in the "other life" they will be punished or prized for their behaviour in this life.There prize simply would be to live responsibily the present.

[Gnist]

I trust in God.

Analogous to the fundamental principle of virtue ethics, I think that good morality has to be brought forth from within, else it is mere agreement with a social contract. But I don't believe in amoral or "free" upbringing or value-neutral society. It doesn't follow from individual responsibility at all.

Originally Posted by Lagun

I have met many people that being deeply atheist, had on the other hand, very strong social values. Furthermore I have known people that claimed to be "perfect Catholics" ("de misa diaria" as we say in Spain), and then fail terribly as individuals, having no social values what so ever,and being what we could call "selfish money lovers".

I once discussed in detail the possibility of God with an atheist, who curiously is nevertheless interested in spirituality. He made an argument to the effect that we cannot know whether our subjective experiences correspond to realities. For example, an experience that will be best described as an experience of God, would thus not entail a Ding an sich (thing in itself) apart from my own experience with an objective existence. I countered this argument by implying that the step from experience to existence is a quasi-step, that we should consider the possibility that the experience of God is God in the way we can know God, and that the experience of God is the only proof we need of God's existence.

What I mean to say is that I think there are some "atheists" who are not really atheists. If they have a strong and sound morality, it may well be that they are already in touch with God? Perhaps the only schism between them and the church is one over superficial criteria.

[The Duke]

Not at all

[Martín Zalacaín]

Originally Posted by Lagun

I have met many people that being deeply atheist, had on the other hand, very strong social values. Furthermore I have known people that claimed to be "perfect Catholics" ("de misa diaria" as we say in Spain), and then fail terribly as individuals, having no social values what so ever,and being what we could call "selfish money lovers".

This is true on a personal level. Some religious people are disgusting money-grabbing hypocrites, some atheists are altruistic men who sacrifice themselves for their people. But if you take it to a social level, you will find that societies need organized religion to stick together, to fight united as one for their own goals. At least that's the conclusion I reach through the study of history. I blame on atheism/nihilism the absence of compromise of nowaday's youth.

Originally Posted by Seekers

Analogous to the fundamental principle of virtue ethics, I think that good morality has to be brought forth from within, else it is mere agreement with a social contract.

While that is ok on an individual level, you need a God to tell everyone what's right and what's wrong if you want society to function. Otherwise expect chaos.

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by Gonzalvus

While that is ok on an individual level, you need a God to tell everyone what's right and what's wrong if you want society to function. Otherwise expect chaos.

You removed the part where I said that it does not entail any such thing as a value-neutral society, if at all such a state could exist. I think it is the other way around even. Leaders as well as parents have a moral responsibility that involves showing the way, acting as role-models, teaching and not least important it involves rewarding the good. In extreme cases it also involves punishing the evil.

I was speaking about "good morality", and I realize that I should have chosen a more specialized vocabulary. I think what I meant was something like true morality, which must rest upon a foundation. Isn't that what connects faith and values, faith being the foundation, and morality that which emanates from God through the soul? Arguably there is also a cultural or ethnic element involved in what is usually thought of as morality, but I distinguish between agreement and true and grounded morality. Culture should encompass both, I think.

Building systems of thought will just about always create logical problems, but that's what I think.

[Laocoon]

I'm a bit naturalist, what I was told it is bad. Does that count as religious?

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Carnyx

I'm a bit naturalist, what I was told it is bad. Does that count as religious?

If you are religiously devoted to that, then I suppose yes.

[Lagun]

Originally Posted by Seekers

I trust in God.

What I mean to say is that I think there are some "atheists" who are not really atheists. If they have a strong and sound morality, it may well be that they are already in touch with God? Perhaps the only schism between them and the church is one over superficial criteria.

Would you consider the differences inbetween Lutheran and Catholic, "superficial criteria"?

[Lagun]

Originally Posted by Gonzalvus

While that is ok on an individual level, you need a God to tell everyone what's right and what's wrong if you want society to function. Otherwise expect chaos.

For the sake of that people would not behave properly if they did not expect to be punished in the "other life"?

[Lagun]

Originally Posted by Seekers

I was speaking about "good morality", and I realize that I should have chosen a more specialized vocabulary. I think what I meant was something like true morality, which must rest upon a foundation. Isn't that what connects faith and values, faith being the foundation, and morality that which emanates from God through the soul? Arguably there is also a cultural or ethnic element involved in what is usually thought of as morality, but I distinguish between agreement and true and grounded morality. Culture should encompass both, I think.

Building systems of thought will just about always create logical problems, but that's what I think.

So there could be cases of people with no faith but with a "connection with God" that could be proved through their high moral values?

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by Lagun

Would you consider the differences inbetween Lutheran and Catholic, "superficial criteria"?

I personally don't attend church except for concerts, rites of passage etc. There are many reasons for it. Basically, that I don't think that they speak to me at all. The Church of Sweden is mostly about politics. Rotten politics.

I know that this is not an answer to your question. I can't answer it, I'm afraid. If there was a church that I felt very strongly about in my neighbourhood, I would join it, but there is none except the Church of Sweden and another protestant church with much the same orientation. I don't think I'm the church-going kind. I'm too much into esoteric and mystic thought and philosophy, not exoteric religion. I used to go to church, but they don't speak to me, nor did I meet anyone like me there.

Originally Posted by Lagun

So there could be cases of people with no faith but with a "connection with God" that could be proved through their high moral values?

Not in an empirical sense. But I believe that spirituality and ethics are linked to each other. But my definition of spirituality is rather wide. People who live by their virtues usually believe in something. What they call it is a different matter.