Dear George,

The devil urging you to do evil things can be seen as something internal by reasonable people of many religions. Sophisticated religion can embrace reasonable explanations. I found the following on the net:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum

"Credo quia absurdum is a Latin phrase of uncertain origin. It means "I believe because it is absurd" It is derived from a poorly remembered or misquoted passage in Tertullian's De Carne Christi defending the tenets of orthodox Christianity against docetism, which reads in the original Latin:

Crucifixus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.— (De Carne Christi V,

4)"The Son of God was crucified: there is no shame, because it is shameful.And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is unsuitable.And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible."

The phrase does not express the Catholic Faith,[1] as explained by Pope Benedict XVI: "The Catholic Tradition, from the outset, rejected the so-called “fideism”, which is the desire to believe against reason. Credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd) is not a formula that interprets the Catholic faith."[2]

The phrase is sometimes associated[3] with the doctrine of fideism, that is, "a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority." (Catholic Encyclopedia). It has also been used, though often in different interpretations, by some existentialists."

Fundamentalists seem to be fideists.

david you..must know..the law..
energy cant be created..nor destroyed..only change form/state

our LIVING*..mind/body..has electrical impulses
one second..there..the next not..where did the E..go?

for that matter where loki?
[i know you possably reject him
god and satan/oden..the lot..[right]..

how about other dimensions?
multi dimension..spirits?
esp..levi-tation..

david/quote..<<..Both belief in a devil..who can force one to sin
and a belief..in an entity..that can remove one's sins..are ways of denying responsibility..for wrongdoing...>>

wrong doing..[by who's measure?]

[recall..that you said ..good from ill..+..visa verso]

i believe..it truthfully is..
that we LET the wheat..grow with the tares..and separated..only at 'harvest'..[death]

<<I believe in neither God..nor devil,..>>

thats seems funny..to me..
how about god's..or a huge bio-organism
spirits?

*neither god/devil..<<but I believe..we should neither excuse our wrongdoing..nor evade our responsibility..to try to make up for it>>..

agreed

but again..what is right..and what is wrong
if we find out after we are dead..noone judges
truth is often..we dont know..the affects..of our works

i heard..of this woman..in her 70's..
who was arrested..for demanding the 5000 dollars..
her voices assured her..[at 13]..she would get..if she forgot about sex

she dies..finds out she likes it
finds out god dont care..one way..or the other
and goes to that place mentioned..in the adjutant pdf

good or bad?

lets say bad
because she suffered..in life

but
good now../
[sure..she is in hell..like a beast in heat..but..loving it*

<<..We feel better..if we accept responsibility,
and we acknowledge..that we are part of society.>

again true
we need to grow up..stop blaming/judging /hurting/fearing..others

but here..in'satans'..realm..a true society..[of like minds
/like loves..like hates]..is only a generalization

here societies..are subsumed..under the catch all..
of just society..or just..a society..for some..

yet in heaven..
or as outsiders would call it..hell
she is with in her own society..of like minds..true peers
via the nun's life..she lived..juxtaposed against the life she ALWAYS wanted to live..

but wanted the 5000..more.

[life is about sorting..the wheat from tare
/goat from sheep..[good from dangerous..the dumb from the even dumber..etc]..high from low..fast from slow

and im..as thick as it gets.

.

Dear David,

.

“ We feel better if we accept responsibility ...”
.

Perhaps that’s why some people accept responsibility for things they did not do. Jesus of Nazareth, for example – though the pleasure was short lived.

Others, the world’s political leaders, institutional religions, religious sects, and all sorts of social and economic hierarchies, impose or, accept (implicitly or contractually) to exercise total or partial monopoly on individual responsibility.

My understanding is that the possibility of assuming full responsibility for one’s own actions and decisions within a democratic environment is not an acceptable proposition for everybody, at all times, in all domains.

I suspect that most people see nothing to gain and everything to lose from accepting responsibility and are not interested in finding out if they feel better or worse if they did.

We generally prefer to deny responsibility (by lying), be absolved of it (by a priest), or transfer it to somebody else (Jesus, an insurer, etc.).

We may not be heroes, but, at least, we are not crazy, nor can we be accused of being mythomaniacs.

.

Re: the Catholic Encyclopaedia definition of fideism, “a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority”:

The Catholic Church’s disparaging definition of fideism is understandable. Deists denied the need for any mediation between humanity and divinity in the form of the Church and dismissed the Church’s claimed mediation as self interested fraud, but a necessary evil in order to maintain social stability.

Fideism, on the other hand, is simply blind faith (belief where there is no material evidence, no circumstantial evidence and no credible eye witness) which the Catholic Church refuses to recognize as the true nature of its belief.

In my humble opinion, not only do religious fundamentalists seem to be fideists, as you suggest, but also deists and theists in their quasi-totality.

I regret the mechanism which prevents them from seeing clear.

.

Dear david f,

>>If the devil made one do evil than one is not responsible for one's evil.<<

This is the devil seen as a person like you and I, instead of a personified model of something supernatural. This is a common confusion. Like when people when talking about physics identify the model with the “origin” that the model (theory) is supposed to represent, and hopefully explain.

Admittedly, googling “the devil made me do it” will return over one million hits, whereas “the devil in me made me do it” will return only about 200,000 hits, although it is the latter that is usually meant - or supposed to mean - also by Christians.

>> If sins are forgiven by believing in some supernatural entity then one is also not responsible for one's evil.<<

Sins are never forgiven “by believing in” anything (at least not as Catholics understand it) but by expressing sincere remorse, contrition is the word here, and willingness to make amends when possible. Is a parent who forgives necessarily denying his/her offspring responsibility for the child’s wrongdoing?

>> We feel better if we accept responsibility, and we acknowledge that we are part of society.<<

No Christian I know would disagree with this.

As for "Credo quia absurdum” I have nothing to add.

The Wikipedia obviously refers to Benedict XVI's important Regensburg lecture, overshadowed by the unfortunate quote that outraged Muslim fanatics, but the core of which was an argument for an “inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry”, against “positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God's transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions.”

It was explicitly an affirmation of the Catholic position, “an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion”, but implicitly also against Muslim interpretations of God as standing beyond and against reason.

Dear George,

I don't think it matters if we feel remorse for wrongdoing. It may ease our own mind, but if we do nothing to make up for it we are just as guilty.

We must try to be better in the area where we did wrong or make up to the one we have wronged. The first requires self-examination followed by action. The second requires specific action based upon what we did.

In our legal system criminals may get lighter sentences if they show remorse for their crimes. I think that is wrong. It puts a premium on dishonesty. A criminal may be honest enough not to show remorse if he or she doesn't feel it or duplicitous enough to feign remorse.

There is a catharsis in confession and having a representative of some supernatural entity absolve you of sin. However, I think it is a denial of responsibility. You have to try to actually do something to make up for wrongdoing.

In the above I have implicitly equated sin with wrongdoing. Wrongdoing is what our conscience tells us is wrong, and sin is defined by some external entity.

The Berrigan brothers, activist priests, poured blood on draft files as a protest against the Vietnamese War. Routinely judges during that period gave heavy sentences to protestors who committed crimes in protest and did not show remorse. The court demanded repentance for what the accused felt were justified acts.

During the period when Catholics were not supposed to eat meat on Friday doing so was a sin. Disobedience to an arbitrary injunction where no harm is caused by the act is something I don’t think should be a sin.

continued

The account in Genesis of Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil points out the arbitrariness of obedience to religious dictums. They were punished for the sin of disobedience. However, until they had eaten the fruit how would they have knowledge of good and evil or right and wrong. We do not punish children for crimes when we assume they are too young to appreciate the wrongness of their acts. Yet God punished the two innocents.

In my opinion the Bible is essentially evil in the arbitrary nature of the blind, senseless obedience it demands