Religion and Individualism

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

I think it would be fun, but I guess it should be "I am from Milan, by way of New Haven". Since "I am not from New Haven "

Yes, but as far as the expression goes, the "I am from" part should match up with where you CURRENTLY live. But do what you like.

Or "from Milan, temporarily in New Haven". Do you plan to stay here long? Are you planning to go back to Italy to live?

And I agree with you, inky - these are beliefs we're talking about.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

In the event of incompatible with life syndromes or medically threatening the life of the mother, I understand the option for abortion as ethically viable. But those are defined parameters. I am not sure that your perception of"the small chance of happiness is not worth the big chance of unhappiness" fits in, however.

Indeed my criterion does not fit into yours, it broader. I have not listed all the occasions in which I see abortion as ethically defensible; I picked one specific instance that underscores the difference between my moral system and the one that I expected Rian to have, thus providing an answer (albeit partial) to his question

Originally Posted by inked

Also, what does the assertion "after the abortion the non-life is not painful for the unborn" mean? This statement is a quadruple negative ( a-, non-, not, un-). It seems to say that the absence of life is good in essence. That seems a religious sort of statement or at least a profound belief.

The sentence is correct as written. You misinterpret it somewhat, I will refrase it (please thank me for my kindness on agreein on this ) "the absence of life is not painful and therefore can be better than life". I don't call this statement religious, but I do call it ethical or moral. Have I not been saying all along that I have a moral system?

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, but as far as the expression goes, the "I am from" part should match up with where you CURRENTLY live.

This pesky English

[inked]

If the absence of life is the absence of pain, why don't we not just all kill ourselves and end the suffering?

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

If the absence of life is the absence of pain, why don't we not just all kill ourselves and end the suffering?

Some do and I think it is their ethical right.
Some others enjoy life, or think that there is a good chance that it will be enjoyable in the future.
Those who I really pity are those who suffer, expect only suffering and decide to keep on living only for religious beliefs. I respect their choice, but I am sorry for them

[Bilbo]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

Some do and I think it is their ethical right.
Some others enjoy life, or think that there is a good chance that it will be enjoyable in the future.
Those who I really pity are those who suffer, expect only suffering and decide to keep on living only for religious beliefs. I respect their choice, but I am sorry for them

This may offend, but that is the art of opinionism...

I am Jewish. I'm the target of racial abuse (rarely, as I am not in an anti-semitic area), yet I know that suffering is not a part of life.
A part of the Oral Law says 'the reward for a Mitzvah is a Mitzvah, the reward for a sin is a sin'. This teaches us that if we fulfill the mitzvot, we a re given the chance to perform Mitzvot. If we sin, then we will become more likely to sin in future, which gives us punishment. Yet, if we sin greatly, yet do just one Mitzvah, we are rewarded much greater than if a righteous person performed the same mitzvah, as it is more of a chalenge for a sinner. Only those who submit to sin will suffer.
Oh, an explanation of Mizvah (plural: Mitzvot). Mitzvot do not include the Ten Commandments (don't muder, don't steal, keep the Sabbath, don't worship idols...). Mitzvot are normally translated as good deeds (e.g. giving to charity). However, this is a misconception, as more than half the Mitzvot are negative (don't do this, don't do that). Positive mitzvot are rewarded for fulfilling (charity, hospitality), while the negative Mitzvot are rewarded if you don't break them (don't drive of the Sabbath, don't eat pork...).

I too am sorry for those who have to suffer. It is opinionated as to what suffering is. For me suffering is not a part of everyday life, while some religions (i don't know which) rely on suffering as a type of repentance (e.g. bloodletting). For us Jews, we can repent any time. In the times of Solomon's Temple we gave offerings, some of which weren't sacrifices e.g. the Incence offering, the Omer offering (one Omer was a pound of Barley). I too pityu those who are commanded to suffer.

[inked]

TWFM is artless in his rejoicing in the sufferings of religious persons which are "all their fault." Clearly if they had only the wit to see with his ethical omniscience, they would choose differently; isn't that right, TWFM? BUT since TWFM's ethics derive solely from him and have no commonality, he cannot communicate them to others. That is, if I have heard him aright on this and other threads.

Suffering as a result of one's actions for error is punishment. It rightly falls on those who persist in error. But suffering is an inescapable component of this world (eg, the tsunami at Christmas, 2004) which occurs apart from deservedness. That suffering may be redeemed. The will to such redemption and heroic sacrifice is noted in all cultures and conditions of men in all times. The achievement is rarer than we could wish, in the strength of men alone.

For Christians, as St Paul notes, who are constantly suffering for their faith, if Christ be not raised, "we are of all men most miserable". If He was raised, then the "sufferings of the present time" are evanescent and miniscule, of no notice, in the glory that is to come. A world-shaking perspective, that!

[Nerdanel]

In 2004 27,000 persons left the lutheran church of Finland. About 80 years ago, 98.1% of all Finns belonged to the lutheran "state church", in 2004 the number was 83.6%, and it's decreasing all the time.

The reasons are thought to be the attitudes young people have: most kids have their confirmation, but sign out afterwards. Another reason is guessed to be the church tax, that few, especially students and those with low income, want to pay. Still, many believe that the most important change has been in the procedure: earlier people had to go to an office to leave the church, sometimes they even had to tell their reasons why they left. Today, it's fixed with a letter, a phone call or by clicking a few times on the web site www.eroakirkosta.fi . easy, isn't it? And now no one has a right to demand a reason why to sign out either.

I think it's good that it has become this much easier. People are forced into a religious society through child baptism, and often confirmation is quite obligatory too, mostly because of the pressure from parents, relatives and/or society. I don't think the opinions on this matter has changed much during the last ten years; i believe that the only thing that has kept people from leaving the (lutheran) church earlier has been the complexity of the procedure.

And according to what i've heard (this is no statistically significant statement), the reason why many young people still belong to the Finnish "state church", is that this allows them to marry traditionally in the church, and membership also includes a free grave.

Cheers.

[inked]

I am resurrecting this thread with the following information on AIDS/HIV and various cultural and religious phenomena which affect prevention and a surprising finding that marriage is a risk factor under specfic cultures. Hopefully this will avoid any allegations of improper placement.

UN reportsynopsis: http://www.cdcnpin.org/scripts/News/NewsList.asp#45588

[Gwaimir Windgem]

What exactly is the relation to religion and individualism?

[inked]

Various religions make AIDS prevention worse to accomplish, not just Roman Catholicism.

Various cultures make AIDS prevention difficult due to norms of behaviour.

Individuals, particularly women, are more at risk due to these factors.

This fits in with the unintended aspect of suffering from two or three posts above.

Altogether, I found the suggestion that in cultures conditioned that way, marriage of younger women to older men may be the biggest risk factor for acquisition of AIDS. This is an enormous barrier to prevent transmission if there is no pre-marital testing. And there isn't. Not even in the USA.

[Nerdanel]

*bump*

after a program on national tv in finland on wednesday, in which a debate on the church and homosexuality was held, over 15,000 members have signed out of the lutheran church of finland. during 5 normal days, about 600-700 people sign out. it's now possible to sign out online, which is great, something which became possible only years after i signed out (at that time, you had to go do it at the church's office). to me, this is great news: maybe someday, finland won't have a state church anymore.. it's also good to see how people start seeing what the church they belong to really stands for, and that they disagree with it. i hope this wave of people signing out keeps up for quite a while, still.. 79% of the finnish population are still members of it and pay church tax to it. as long as it's a state church, even non-members will indirectly pay taxes to the church, since companies have to pay it too. the present situation, with finland having two state churches (the finnish orthodox church being the other), is a bunch of crap, really, and way too backwards for a modern, western state, with an increasingly secular population.

the news on slashdot (from friday with old numbers)

[Jonathan]

Interesting.

Separation of state and church would probably be a good thing in any case. Though, if it was my country, rather than hoping that the "wave of people signing out keeps up for quite a while", I'd rather see the church learn from this, change some of its attitudes (on homosexuality etc.) and present itself in a better light, thus preventing members from leaving.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Various religions make AIDS prevention worse to accomplish, not just Roman Catholicism.

Various cultures make AIDS prevention difficult due to norms of behaviour.

Individuals, particularly women, are more at risk due to these factors.

This fits in with the unintended aspect of suffering from two or three posts above.

Altogether, I found the suggestion that in cultures conditioned that way, marriage of younger women to older men may be the biggest risk factor for acquisition of AIDS. This is an enormous barrier to prevent transmission if there is no pre-marital testing. And there isn't. Not even in the USA.

Okay, I'm with Gwai in wondering why this thread, but the article on marriage sounds interesting, but I don't see it in the link and can't find it on the site. Help?

[inked]

The original link was posted in 2006. The site has been updated. Therefore, the apparent disconnect. Happy archiving, if you so choose!

[GrayMouser]

Too lazy but I'm guessing it's about African and Asian countries- places where there are even stories that sex with a virgin can cure AIDS. Older men get AIDS, usually through sex with prostitutes, then pass it on to young brides and their future children.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Though, if it was my country, rather than hoping that the "wave of people signing out keeps up for quite a while", I'd rather see the church learn from this, change some of its attitudes (on homosexuality etc.) and present itself in a better light, thus preventing members from leaving.

I'd like to hope that they'd finally learn from it, but I'm not holding my breath. After all over here, just after a pretty damning report on the wide-spread child-abuse by priests and the like, which has not been adequately addressed by the Church in the decades it has been going on, the new archbisshop thinks it's the perfect time to reiterate his very merciful and christian views "that aids is a bit like divine justice, really".

In a country where the most beloved saint is someone who gave his life in the care for lepers, I don't think one can make a more stupid, unwordly and arrogant comment. And thus while we're experiencing yet another record of people signing out of the church because of this, he continues to bleat he's "just misunderstood".

Yeah, not holding my breath...

[GrayMouser]

"The Church" or "the church"? The former is often used to refer to the Roman Catholic Church- all the references in your post seem to be to that- whereas, being Finland and all, Nerdanel would be talking about the Lutheran Church.

[Earniel]

My post was mainly about the former as you noticed. But since both seem to suffer from the same problems, I didn't think it would matter too much which one for this instance.

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Interesting.

Separation of state and church would probably be a good thing in any case. Though, if it was my country, rather than hoping that the "wave of people signing out keeps up for quite a while", I'd rather see the church learn from this, change some of its attitudes (on homosexuality etc.) and present itself in a better light, thus preventing members from leaving.

Well, in my opinion, the opinion of the church is mostly up to them. I left the church because I was forced into it, it offended me and the world view it promoted was far, far away from mine. I don't think I have much of a right to have an opinion on what they should change, just like they shouldn't have any right to have an opinion on me. It really just depends on what kind of church they want to be.

The only reason their ideas and policies have anything to do with me is that it's the state church of the country I live in: if they want to keep their ancient ideas alive, that's fine, as long as I'm not affected by it or pay indirect taxes to them (through companies paying church tax). If the lutheran church wants to become a conservative sect, that's their problem. And clearly, it is a problem for them; over 25,000 people have now left the church in 5 days, which means about 5 million € less in taxes for them per year.

I wonder how low the membership in the church has to be before people realize that we need to separate it from the state..