Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[smjjames]

I wonder what Eriguena would think of the mythology in Kill Six Billion Demons. Since it has the whole division thing going, though it’s closer to a ying-yang type thing with elements of a whole bunch of other religions mixed in.

[wierd]

Many of these (temporally contemporary) philosophies cross-pollinated. Take for instance, the obvious facets of gnosticism that borrow heavily from this set of views.

While they all integrated parts of each other, into each other, they all seemed to universally revile each other-- So, my guess is that he would find the comic contemptible, but interesting.

[TD1]

His influences were mainly Neo-Platonic. His work is notable in its blending of Eastern Roman and Western Roman philosophies. Based in Frankia under Charles the Bald (I believe Charlemagne's.... grandson?) in a time in which Greek was extremely rarely taught, he translated and incorporated works such as that of the Pseudo-Dionysus. It's part of why his work was considered heretical by some, although amusingly he was only writing because some clerical friends (it's not certain that he himself was a churchman) asked him to wade in to the Gottschalk controversy. Eriugena decided to fight heresy with... MORE HERESY!

Ah, imagine his mates' faces 

The Gottschalk controversy might interest you lot, by the way. It was the idea of predestination - Gottschalk believed that we are predestined to badness and predestined to goodness. Though he was shunted to various monasteries (see "house arrest") and was denied the sacraments on his death, he didn't recant. Hence Eriugena's biting response, the Treatise on Divine Predestination, in which God only predestines the saved and not the damned. I believe the analogy of two drowning men is used (either by Eriugena or someone supporting him - again, can't recall). One man is trying to swim, and so freely chooses to be in a position in which he can be saved. The other is not trying, and so is freely choosing to die. In other words, the believer reaches for salvation consciously as his own choice and is therefore saved. The non-believer chooses damnation.

Gottschalk emphasised inevitability; Eriugena (albeit in a novel and non-conformist way) emphasised free will as a force interacting with, rather than opposing, predestination.

I don't know if that made sense, actually. I tried to pare it down, but Eriugena always made my head tie into knots.

[smjjames]

This is more politics related, but it’s tangentially religion since the politician seems to be invoking DnD here, or at least it just seems like he thinks people can ask god for some magical bulletproof aura or someshit. So, if anybody on the Ameripol thread wants to tangent heavily, here’s the crossover:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/01/politics/texas-state-rep-praying-for-protection-shooting/index.html

When are religious people, politicians in particular, going to realize that god does not work like DnD?

Edit: I wonder how many of those shooters were ‘god-fearing christians’? That’d put a stake right into his ‘godless people that need saving’ argument.

[IndigoFenix]

God does what God wants.

The theory of prayer is that by aligning yourself with God's will and making it more likely that your willing actions will advance God's plan, your existence, survival and success will benefit God's plan and therefore you have a better chance of getting those things, rather than being used as a pawn and getting discarded when you've outlived your usefulness.

God isn't a magical sky fairy that gives you stuff because you want it. Philosophically and theologically that doesn't even make sense.

[TD1]

I don't think people think of it like that. People are encouraged to pray for two reasons - Firstly, as a means to establish communication with the divine and build a relationship, whether one similar to father and child or one similar to friendship. Some nuns even go so far as to claim their relationship to Jesus may be likened to marriage. Secondly, as a form of petition, a plea for aid. The problem is, as you say, that there is little theological sense behind this second one.

My argument is that people don't really care about the theological implications. Throughout their lives, they have been encouraged to build a relationship with God. A natural facet of any such relationship is that of obligation - a father is obliged to help his child, a friend their friend. Their prayers do not go to the Almighty, who will measure their pleas on a silver scale and find them wanting. Their prayers go to the being whom they love, and whose love they feel assured of in return.

Indeed, people don't think of God as a magical sky fairy who will indulge their whims. They think of him as a friend or father who loves and wants the best for them... and when calamity strikes, a genuine friend would say 'screw it' to their own plans, no matter the consequences, and help.

In other words, prayer in such cases is an emotional outpouring - one which seeks reciprocation. It is not a rational or logical action in which people consider theology or, indeed, logic.

[Gentlefish]

Some nuns even go so far as to claim their relationship to Jesus may be likened to marriage.

Wait - I thought that was the point. Like, in the vows of nunnery and all it's a wedding and devotion to Jesus over real, actual people.

[TD1]

Nah, it depends on the nuns.

[smjjames]

I was just railing at the whole rationale. Praying to deal with grief? Sure, whatever works for you. But saying that we need to pray the evil away is as stupid a reasoning as saying that hitler came because people didn’t pray hard enough and it reminded me of that televangelist pastor guy who thinks* that many people praying for him creates a hurricane proof shield or something around him. Of which both examples would be completely unlike what indigofenix and th4dwarfy1 said.

*Though it’s possible they meant it as a joke or something, I don’t remember if they were actually serious in that belief.

[Rolan7]

Someone in a non-Bay12 chat mentioned that prayer "if nothing else" helps comfort those of us hearing about these tragedies, and I sorta want to address that.  The context was not of comforting victims, but the rest of us who have to figure out how to react to these almost unimaginable tragedies.

It's no worse than clicking a reaction emoji on Facebook.  It doesn't help the victims, but very few people expect it to.  It's a traditional way to contemplate/meditate.  We think about what happened and try to integrate it into our understanding of the world.

Some people might feel comforted afterward and put the tragedy out of their mind, trusting that greater powers will handle it.  That's not unique to prayer.  Skeptics and atheists are also overwhelmed by things which deserve outrage, and often allow the news cycle to spin on.  Any contemplation which helps us process these issues and form calm opinions about them is helpful, as it prepares us for taking actual action.

[smjjames]

Yeah, that’s... probably part of what I was venting about, not the simple act of prayer itself, meditation takes many forms, but more the attitude of ‘Must pray away the evil!’ which comes off as bible thumping idiot (politician).

The whole ‘thoughts and prayers’ is tired and I’m sure everybody on both sides (even the gun toting ppl who want a focus on mental health and have their own views) are frustrated with no concrete movement while this keeps happening, but it’s the whole double facepalm groan level of dumbness (especially when it falls right into the stereotype) that gets me. It’s sort of like trying to ask god to physically (or psychically) intervene (which is what I was trying to imply with the DND reference earlier) when he doesn’t actually exist... at least not in the way that one would be able to physically throw thunderbolts or imbue clerics with spells.

In reality, it’s going to be the word of humanity, people, (or the voice of god speaking through people if you want to take that route) that ‘transforms the hearts of those with evil intent’ not god.

[TD1]

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/harry-potter-banned-catholic-school-real-spells/?fbclid=IwAR1rYeLcfCUUgCdAz8tsQEOIZbXSGR4gR90eW3WAaSPkGDuH8WaUPtdD-TI#gallery-2

[Frumple]

Pretty sure that came up in the wtf thread, or something? Shonus, iirc, noted it's more or less literal heresy.

[TD1]

Oh. Well, that's a coincidence. I saw it on Facebook.

[Gentlefish]

that the books are heresy or that the banning of the books is heresy?

Because those people actually believe that reading the pseudolatin aloud summons literal demons and bad spirits.