The popes at it again..

[tibilicus]

I think any ethical scientist would agree that science without morality is madness. The Church is one source of morality.


Evolution is taught in Catholic schools, and looking a possibly deeply-flawed wikipedia article, a Cardinal said (sometime around 2005 Anno Domino)


And maybe if you shared why you were so dogmatically opposed to belief more of us could understand where you are coming from, tibilicus.

/just read Canticle for Leibowitz and feelin' good about the Roman Catholic Church :P
//ex-Catholic
///slashies

Basically the whole concept of it. It was basically drawn up by humans to explains stuff science couldn't thousands of years ago and to give people emotional security. Today with amount of support out there and the knowledge of the modern world it seems pretty redundant to me.

Another problem I have is with all the wings of religion as a whole. Due to the fact this threads about Catholics I will use Christianity as an example, any other religion could be used just as easily though. Basically you've got your fundamentals who believe the bible word by word. In my opinion these people are nut jobs and I find it extremely hard to see how a book can hold the answer to everything in life.

You then have your more liberal and less fundamental Christians but they then just go and pick what they want from the bible and say it's right. So the garden of Eden isn't literal but Moses was a real person. You can't just pick and choose from some book to prove a point. You could get any combination of answers by doing that. The bible then mentions one minute that God is vengeful but the next he's all loving? If a God really is all powerful and loving then why the whole human suffering argument? If it is just a test like many Christians say then why surely let so much pain exist? Does that mean God is cruel?

Like most Atheists I don't jump to conclusions, as a kid I attended church, I was never forced to, but I can honestly say that almost from day one the whole concept of me standing in a building and clapping my hands and singing songs to praise something I can't even see seemed primitive and pointless to me.

Are you also saying that if I lead my life like I currently do by being a good person and helping other I'm not going to go to "heaven" as I don't clap my hands in that building every Sunday? Yet some one who does and leads no where near as good a life as me will? I find that stupid to be honest. Also look at all the great non Christian people i.e Gandhi. Is he now burning in hell according to some Christians?

I appreciate the security and emotional reassurance religion and the church can give but even then that can be found in other sources. One of my friends is heavily religious (he's a Methodist) so when he's feeling down he goes and talks to some one at the church. I on the other hand head over to a buddy's house with a 6 pack of beer and would prefer to talk it over with him. I can let things of my chest much easier that way.

So yer that's what I find wrong with religion. You don't have to agree with it but free speech and all that. If Benedict aloud his opinion I'm aloud mine..

[tibilicus]

I think any ethical scientist would agree that science without morality is madness. The Church is one source of morality.

Yes science needs ethics but are you ignoring the other sources of morality. Are you suggesting that you have to be religious to be moral? Yes the church is one source of morality, where it draws it's morals from though have no solid backing and again it all comes down to that big book of facts. Morality can just as easily be obtained from a law maker for example. I'm not religious and I know what is wrong or right. it's human instinct, murdering is wrong, period.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes science needs ethics but are you ignoring the other sources of morality. Are you suggesting that you have to be religious to be moral? Yes the church is one source of morality, where it draws it's morals from though have no solid backing and again it all comes down to that big book of facts. Morality can just as easily be obtained from a law maker for example. I'm not religious and I know what is wrong or right. it's human instinct, murdering is wrong, period.

Damn right. Religion just provides a different answer to the "why" that small children (or philosophers) ask.

Humans instinctively act in groupings as that is what has worked. We have extended them to even include ones that are a slight detriment to ourselves, but generally still helping others on average helps ourselves.

[Lord Winter]

Another problem I have is with all the wings of religion as a whole. Due to the fact this threads about Catholics I will use Christianity as an example, any other religion could be used just as easily though. Basically you've got your fundamentals who believe the bible word by word. In my opinion these people are nut jobs and I find it extremely hard to see how a book can hold the answer to everything in life.

You then have your more liberal and less fundamental Christians but they then just go and pick what they want from the bible and say it's right. So the garden of Eden isn't literal but Moses was a real person. You can't just pick and choose from some book to prove a point. You could get any combination of answers by doing that. The bible then mentions one minute that God is vengeful but the next he's all loving? If a God really is all powerful and loving then why the whole human suffering argument? If it is just a test like many Christians say then why surely let so much pain exist? Does that mean God is cruel?

The Old Testament is suppose to be the history of the code of law needed before Jesus. So most of the whole God will smite you part is recognized as outdated and not needed, being able to give way to the New Testament's message of forgiveness and Grace. Your right picking and choosing, can give you any combination of answers needed, but is that truly the opposite of the literal fundamental Christians? I would argue that such picking and choosing is still a fairly fundamental reading. Instead the overall spirt, instead of the text, should be read out of the bible. Perhaps part of what I'm saying is the Bible is not the only source of religious truth and must be combined with Human reasoning and ones sense of morals.


As for the whole human suffering thing, I'm not going to try to answer it. Except for maybe a mention of Life without Free Will is meaningless.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Basically the whole concept of it. It was basically drawn up by humans to explains stuff science couldn't thousands of years ago and to give people emotional security. Today with amount of support out there and the knowledge of the modern world it seems pretty redundant to me.

Conjecture and personal opinion.

Another problem I have is with all the wings of religion as a whole. Due to the fact this threads about Catholics I will use Christianity as an example, any other religion could be used just as easily though. Basically you've got your fundamentals who believe the bible word by word. In my opinion these people are nut jobs and I find it extremely hard to see how a book can hold the answer to everything in life.

Oh, they are irritating, but they don't actually read the Bible, book by book, they read bits at a time.

You then have your more liberal and less fundamental Christians but they then just go and pick what they want from the bible and say it's right. So the garden of Eden isn't literal but Moses was a real person. You can't just pick and choose from some book to prove a point. You could get any combination of answers by doing that. The bible then mentions one minute that God is vengeful but the next he's all loving? If a God really is all powerful and loving then why the whole human suffering argument? If it is just a test like many Christians say then why surely let so much pain exist? Does that mean God is cruel?

Progressive revelation and human fallability. Regardless of the origin of any religion it is transmitted by people.

[/quote]Like most Atheists I don't jump to conclusions, as a kid I attended church, I was never forced to, but I can honestly say that almost from day one the whole concept of me standing in a building and clapping my hands and singing songs to praise something I can't even see seemed primitive and pointless to me.[/quote]

This is like me as a Christian saying, " don't believe I'm right, I know." It looks exactly like you are jumping to conclusions here. You certainly don't know anything about Catholicism if you though they didn't accept evolution.

Are you also saying that if I lead my life like I currently do by being a good person and helping other I'm not going to go to "heaven" as I don't clap my hands in that building every Sunday? Yet some one who does and leads no where near as good a life as me will? I find that stupid to be honest. Also look at all the great non Christian people i.e Gandhi. Is he now burning in hell according to some Christians?

This is a common misconception. Adherence to Christian doctrine does not equal salvation, such has never been stated. Hell is the punishement meted out to unrepentant sinners. You are unrepentant, but so is the Bishop who steals from the Collection Plate. As far as living a good life, consider this:

You live an outwardly good life without being a Christian, this suggests to others that they can do likewise. Therefore, by your actions tou condemn them to hell because you incite others to participate in the Sin or rejecting God.

Personally I'm not concerned overmuch with my own salvation. God will either save me or he won't, I just try to do the best I can because I have no real understanding of how the decision is made.

[tibilicus]

Conjecture and personal opinion.



Oh, they are irritating, but they don't actually read the Bible, book by book, they read bits at a time.



Progressive revelation and human fallability. Regardless of the origin of any religion it is transmitted by people.

Like most Atheists I don't jump to conclusions, as a kid I attended church, I was never forced to, but I can honestly say that almost from day one the whole concept of me standing in a building and clapping my hands and singing songs to praise something I can't even see seemed primitive and pointless to me.

This is like me as a Christian saying, " don't believe I'm right, I know." It looks exactly like you are jumping to conclusions here. You certainly don't know anything about Catholicism if you though they didn't accept evolution.



This is a common misconception. Adherence to Christian doctrine does not equal salvation, such has never been stated. Hell is the punishement meted out to unrepentant sinners. You are unrepentant, but so is the Bishop who steals from the Collection Plate. As far as living a good life, consider this:

You live an outwardly good life without being a Christian, this suggests to others that they can do likewise. Therefore, by your actions tou condemn them to hell because you incite others to participate in the Sin or rejecting God.

Personally I'm not concerned overmuch with my own salvation. God will either save me or he won't, I just try to do the best I can because I have no real understanding of how the decision is made.[

I know enough about the Vatican and it's passed to know that it is a corrupt organization. Even going back to issues such as indulgences in the 15th and 16th century this is evident to seem. Again this isn't saying all Catholics are corrupt but the main institution IMO could be a hell of a lot more spiritual and more in touch with God instead of the other act it engages in. The amount of wealth not just the Catholic church but other churches demand is staggering. Religion is a multi billion doller business and if you believe the Pope and co really care about our salvation over there bank balance then that I'm afraid is wrong.

Also as a Christian I would like to ask you which sins have I committed? Not believing in something with no fallible evidence? Does your teachings also suggest that if a murderer repents his sins he's free to go to heaven but as long as i'm a good man but refuse to accept something that has no solid backing I will rot in hell?

It would appear God doesn't just work in mysterious way but incredibly illogic ones..

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Religion is a multi billion doller business and if you believe the Pope and co really care about our salvation over there bank balance then that i'm afraid is wrong.

World's largest charity, anyone?

[Lord Winter]

I know enough about the Vatican and it's passed to know that it is a corrupt organization. Even going back to issues such as indulgences in the 15th and 16th century this is evident to seem. Again this isn't saying all Catholics are corrupt but the main institution IMO could be a hell of a lot more spiritual and more in touch with God instead of the other act it engages in. The amount of wealth not just the Catholic church but other churches demand is staggering. Religion is a multi billion doller business and if you believe the Pope and co really care about our salvation over there bank balance then that I'm afraid is wrong.

Your losing creditability when your slamming the church for stuff that happened 500 years ago. I agree with you that the Pope isn't the best way to communicate with God, but your going to far when your making him out to be the most evil force ever.

(for the record I agree with you about the whole need to move past the gay issue but there also is progress going on at the same time. Give it a while.

Also as a Christian I would like to ask you which sins have I committed? Not believing in something with no fallible evidence? .

I don't know if the Christan God is the correct God but I do believe that there is some sort of higher power. Look at the order and majesty of the world around you, and tell me that you can't even accept a chance of a God. Being the skeptical child of the enlightenment you are, you should hold everything, especially your own beliefs in question.

Does your teachings also suggest that if a murderer repents his sins he's free to go to heaven but as long as i'm a good man but refuse to accept something that has no solid backing I will rot in hell?

It would appear God doesn't just work in mysterious way but incredibly illogic ones.

Personally, I'm a universalist so I don't think you'll burn in hell anyway. Overall the points irrelevant in a debate about corruption in organized religion.

[tibilicus]

Your losing creditability when your slamming the church for stuff that happened 500 years ago. I agree with you that the Pope isn't the best way to communicate with God, but your going to far when your making him out to be the most evil force ever.

I'm not making him out to be evil. I'm making him out as some one who seems to have the right to bash a whole group of people and get away with it because he is an almighty spiritual leader. He could of said some more censored stuff in that speech and keep every one happy. Instead he played the card which the church of England's Archbishop of Canterbury plays all the time, I'll say something controversial for media attention. Come on popey, if you feel you need to broaden your flock try preaching honesty not hate.

You also say there is progression on the gay thing yet the other day the Pope called it unnatural and a threat to the human race? As well as saying acts to decriminalize it are a step to far. Sounds like great progress to me that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not making him out to be evil. I'm making him out as some one who seems to have the right to bash a whole group of people and get away with it because he is an almighty spiritual leader. He could of said some more censored stuff in that speech and keep every one happy. Instead he played the card which the church of England's Archbishop of Canterbury plays all the time, I'll say something controversial for media attention. Come on popey, if you feel you need to broaden your flock try preaching honesty not hate.

You also say there is progression on the gay thing yet the other day the Pope called it unnatural and a threat to the human race? As well as saying acts to decriminalize it are a step to far. Sounds like great progress to me that.

Look, I know this is a difficult thing for you to grasp but Churchmen are in the buisness of saving souls, not making life easy.

The Pope cannot broaden his flock by sacrificing doctrine on the alter of popularity, if he does that the Faith ceases to have the power to save anyone.

Now, I really want to hear what Docter Williams has said that has you all riled up.

[tibilicus]

Look, I know this is a difficult thing for you to grasp but Churchmen are in the buisness of saving souls, not making life easy.

The Pope cannot broaden his flock by sacrificing doctrine on the alter of popularity, if he does that the Faith ceases to have the power to save anyone.

Now, I really want to hear what Docter Williams has said that has you all riled up.

From your post before this you seem to suggest I can't accept to whole im an evil sinner thing. So I have a question for you. Why can't you just accept when we die we become worm food and that's then end of it? You know as well the Hobbit has some pretty wonderful characters in that much like the bible. I'm starting to think that maybe Gandalf the Gray could be God because it's written in a pretty convincing narrative book.


And doctor Williams had said many things. In particular it was his comment about Sharia Law being accepted in the UK. He knew that wouldn't go down to well with his fellow church members or any one else for that matter. What he did know however is that it would bring the attention of the media on to the church. Something which he felt he needed to do because lets be honest religion isn't really all that important in comparison to what it was here 50 years ago.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I know enough about the Vatican and it's passed to know that it is a corrupt organization. Even going back to issues such as indulgences in the 15th and 16th century this is evident to seem. Again this isn't saying all Catholics are corrupt but the main institution IMO could be a hell of a lot more spiritual and more in touch with God instead of the other act it engages in. The amount of wealth not just the Catholic church but other churches demand is staggering. Religion is a multi billion doller business and if you believe the Pope and co really care about our salvation over there bank balance then that I'm afraid is wrong.

I've heard this arguement before, and it always baffles me, be it the Church, a political party etc. the same fallacy keeps coming up. So the Catholic Church was corrupt in the 15th Century, the current Pope was not involved in any of that. Converesly, he was involved in the clampdown on deviant clergy.

As to the money issue:

The Catholic Church has massive outgoings, how much do you think it takes to keep St Peter's in Rome open for a day? I can tell you that the much smaller St Peter's in my own city costs £15,000 a day to keep open, and that doesn't take account of the structural work which there simply isn't money for right now. I'm not a Catholic at all, I don't agree with Papal Supremacy, or disbarring women from Holy Orders, to name only two issues I have with the Roman Church, but to suggest that the Pope is more concerned with his bank balance than anything else is absurd. If he was he would not make statements which caused some people to turn away from Rome, and he'd tithe.

I'm not aware of the Catholic Church demmanding people's money, weddings and funerals cost, granted, but it costs to have that done anywhere. If you are comparing Roman Church to the Megachurches in the Bible belt they frankly couldn't be further apart.

Also as a Christian I would like to ask you which sins have I committed? Not believing in something with no fallible evidence? Does your teachings also suggest that if a murderer repents his sins he's free to go to heaven but as long as i'm a good man but refuse to accept something that has no solid backing I will rot in hell?

It would appear God doesn't just work in mysterious way but incredibly illogic ones..

Well lets begin with you: What sins have you not committed? I was asked this recently and my interlocutor was able to peg me for fornication (illicit) because that's a mental as much as physical thing, theft, and false witness. He could have added taking thew Lord's name in vain and not honouring my father and my mother for starters. I've probably breached every commandement at some point except murder.

So, can you say you have never done anything wrong? I doubt it, and the tiniest imperfection disqualifies you from a place in heaven.

The murderer would be forgiven so long as he truely repents. That means he does it out of genuine contrition, not to save his soul, and he aceepts his guilt. How do you suppose a truely penitant murderer feals about himself? He has to accept his sins, and then be willing to ask for forgiveness, and to abandon all claim over his own soul.

By contrast, you demand forgiveness based on your own merit without actually being willing to ask for it. You don't even believe in the being that can absolve you.

You don't actually want forgiveness or absolution.