the pope and the church

Other than that whole... Nazi thing.


But I'm sure that it's not possible for a pope to be a bad person, just like it's certainly not possible for a President to be a liar or something.




There will always be prejudiced people, but I personally wouldn't change my view on an entire people based on just one of them. I don't know how many people would, however.


The office of Pope is a position that gives a person the capability to do a lot of good, or a lot of bad, or a little of both. And we've had popes to span the entire spectrum. Any case in which you have a sovereign has the potential to be dangerous, though, especially when it is sovereign of a belief system not limited to a certain area. There are people all over the world that will listen and act upon what the Pope says and does. If it weren't a very old system that we were all already used to existing and don't even think about, it would be scary as fuck.


Personally, I don't give much of a shit about most things. I'm an atheist, and believe religion to be probably the most corrosive force against human progress in it's history, but I don't really care. Honestly, if it wasn't religion, it probably would have something else equally as silly. Or it wouldn't have been. Can't change it now, though, and we are making progress. It's gotten to the point in modern society that the people smart enough to be making great strides for humanity are not waylaid by societies thick with the impediment of religion. It just isn't a big deal anymore; most people treat their religion like their zodiac sign these days anyway.

I kinda wanted to stay out of this thread but in the end I could not help my self. I am not here to try to rip your opinion apart like in the last thread we argued in Nobosaki, I will just add another angle to it. For me at least the number one turn off when it comes to religion is the idea that I do not know how to run my own life. The religious will always say that everything you do is pre-determined and is according to God's will. How is that justice? Lets say someone who worked their fingers to the bone to earn their right to life a happy retirement loses all of the money the ever earned because the banks went under? How is that justice for the elderly man?

Also about the pope, still no opinion.

The funny thing about life, is that we cant know what laid in the road not taken.

I dont know. Better Christians (if I can, or would, call myself that) would argue that God knows best. I will simply say, I dont know. But as you quoted me, I think justice might not be the correct word.

Here's an example. A king "offers" you something. Now, this is way less than you might have expected, or think you deserve, but thats what the king is offering. If it was anyone else, you would take your sword and challenge them to a duel for the insult, but he IS the king. So you cant only kneel and say "The king is gracious. This is more than I deserve" And take it.

Now you see my view of God is not very orthodox, but thats my answer.

I find it interesting that the western ideology of God and the reality depicted in traditional religion are entirely different. Yet somehow people manage to mesh to two and feel like even though God is depicted as jealous and vengeful and a tyrant, he still loves everyone and still remains a purely benevolent being.

Why is it more than you deserve?

I don’t think that your view of God is unorthodox, just more old-fashioned than most people today. You believe it is right to worship God because he is God, and that you shouldn’t need any other reason – and perhaps that is true, this is after all the mentality from which the phase “the fear of God” comes from.

But it is not enough for me to know that God exists (though I haven’t even begin to broach that subject). If he really did create me, that’s great. But I never asked to be his plaything, and I’m certainly not going to be thankful for it. You don’t love your parents because they created you; you love them because they loved you back.

If you accept that God is not just, then you must accept that there is nothing to be thankful to him for. He may have created you, but he created you into a world of hatred and greed to which the only salvation is a process of arbitrary judgment when you die.

That makes sense. All I know is when I die and I find myself in front of God, or someone who represents Him, I think I have every right to be pissed off because of the unfairness of life. And I would remain so until I get a good answer as to why, and not some " Because it is My will " bullshit. Until them I will just live my life the best I can and deal with the afterlife when I get there.

As I said, I don't know if I still believe in God. I'd say im the frontier between atheism and belief. But I always thought of God as arbitrary. After all, there is a verse that says "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion"

Now, if I knew without a doubt that God existed, I would accept it. You say that knowing god exists is not enough (or would not be enough), but you are wrong. If I knew without a doubt, I would do as he commanded, because that would mean there is a hell for certain for those that do otherwise.

I love George Carlin. And I must say that this album is one his best.

I have always lived by the principle that if you always do what you think is right, a benevolent God cannot fault you for that, even if you never believed in him. A selfish and vengeful God might, but a vengeful selfish god cannot be just, so you were only ever at the mercy of his whims anyway.

There is no way to prove God's existence, so the only logical thing to do is live your life the best way you know how - and if, when it comes time for you to die, it happens to be that there is a God, know that he cannot in good conscience punish you if he is just.

Edit to Maxiart: I find the concept of hell interesting actually... imagine for a minute that God is a tyrant. Is it not possible - probable even - that his people might rise up against him? If they did, would they not be righteous in their rebellion? If the bible is God's book, would it not also be biased on the subject of such a rebellion?

There is no way to know if hell even exists, or if it exists as the scriptures say. For all we know it is merely a haven for those who refuse God's oppression. Of course it is possible that hell is a place of eternal damnation... but my point is once you accept that God is not just, you have to take everything else you know about God and religion with a grain of salt.

Ah, but does his definition of 'benevolence' matches ours? No, scratch that. Does OUR definition match His? He is a God, you know? And he IS vengeful.

As I said before, his justice is his will. Or so I believed. Whatever he does is justice, because he says so, and he is all-powerful, so no one can nay-say him.

To me belongeth vengeance and recompence.

Also, I forgot this



Because the King says so, and if you disagree with him, well, in the manners of old, off with your head!

If God has a definition of benevolence that does not match our definition of benevolence, and God only matches his own definition of benevolence, then God quite simply does not match our definition of benevolence. You would think that this would be intuitive, but this is still an argument I hear often.

My point is when you change the definition of a word, it isn't the same word, even if you call it the same thing - and to us, what matters is that God is benevolent by our definition. If he remains benevolent by his thinking, but is a tyrant to ours, he is still a tyrant to us.

Indeed. The problem comes when arguing with an all-powerful God that is convinced he is in the right, before he whisks you down to hell.

I find this conversation entertaining, discussing from a purely dispassionate point of view. Or not. I mean, am not trying to convince anyone. Am just discussing my ideas.

In order:

I think that the pope is the HUMAN leader of an organization created to help HUMANS get through life without destroying too much. I'm not too huge on the new one, but the previous pope was a shining example of the office. He preached tolerance ALONGSIDE THE DALAI LAMA. (I spelled that wrong) And, though he was against birth control, he let the church through numerous reforms in thought, practice and relation. He emphasized the relation between faith and reason in his writings. He traveled the world spreading new ideas, and was the first one to reach Mexico and the White House. He took steps forward in the effort to re-unify the Christian Faith.
He took a firm stand on abortion, not only by condemning it, but by DEFINING IT:
"All human life, from the moments of conception and through all subsequent stages, is sacred."
OH! I'm getting help from wikipedia, check this out:
Evolution

See also: Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church and Scientific theories and the interpretation of Genesis.

On 22 October 1996, in a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences plenary session at the Vatican, Pope John Paul II declared the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin as factual, and wholly compatible with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.[122][123][124][125]

The pope said “If taken literally, the Biblical view of the beginning of life and Darwin's scientific view would seem irreconcilable. In Genesis, the creation of the world, and Adam, the first human, took six days. Evolution's process of genetic mutation and natural selection-the survival and proliferation of the fittest new species-has taken billions of years, according to scientists ...”[122]

Although accepting the theory of evolution, John Paul II made one major exception - the human soul. “If the human body has its origin in living material which pre-exists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God”.[122][124][125]
^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II#Teachings

Let's move on.

-Not who's god?
-The pope is a HUMAN doing the best he can. You can't disprove the infallable using the flawed.
-The "Christian Faith" is multi-faceted and claims many holy men. Not just the pope and his people.

Next:

The Church is a political body created to assist people with their life. Run by the race of men, for the race of men.
The Crusades were a political ploy to stop Europeans from killing each other...by killing everyone else. Immoral? I don't know...
But once again, these are people trying to do the best they can. Some decisions are bound to be the wrong ones.


Yeah, middle schoolers. Even the bright ones are ignorant.
Also, for part two of the previous: Faith should be flexible, yet strong. The entire idea of a "test" is to revise yourself in order to preserve your belief.
Even in bigger venues, like church decisions, their is room for forgiveness when things go wrong.

Since these are human constructs, why are they in a religion debate?
Presuming to know god's intentions is considered a sin (probably to keep the peace--agian).
People who want to tack on morality need to ask if god is really "good" or simply a neutral observer. Is it not reasonable to love one's children, but still want to see them make their own way?
--------------------------------

Anyway:
-Yes, I am Catholic.
-No, I don't practice.
-No, I don't want to convert you.
-Yes, you have pissed me off.

Take a look at what you're trying to slam, maybe it will refine your reasoning.

I have very strong beliefs when it comes to religion... but I think that unsolicited preaching is one of the greatest pitfalls of traditional religion. That said, I always enjoy a good debate even so =).

To respond to your edit in the other post though: I suppose it comes down to your principles. From a moral stand point, at least on a theoretical level, I don't see how it is right to bend your principles in response to fear - even for your life. If God would not accept that sacrifice, then we have arrived at the direct opposite of all that he claims to stand for.

Wouldn't you bend, if you knew for a certainty God was an all-powerful existing being which would whisk you to hell otherwise, for all eternity?

As for morality, I have abandoned such a term, and such a belief.
I wont go in-depth about it, since religion is already a grand-debate by itself.

I think I already addressed this, but you may have missed it because it was in an edit of mine on the second page. Here it is again:



So far we have been playing this game by your rules, but you must consider that once we accept god is unjust, as we clearly both have, you have to accept that the everything that we have to tell us anything about who he is cannot be trusted. Why would God, who for the sake of this argument we have established as unjust, grant you anything at all? Perhaps it was all a lie, and we all go to hell anyway. You can't even make the claim that one thing might be more likely than the other, because really we don't know anything.

But back to your proposition: what you suggest is a paradox. On one hand God is unjust, and on the other hand you propose that I know for certain God will send me to hell if I spite him. It is not possible to both know that God's intentions are uncertain, and that he will also do something for certain.

Since the only thing I can conclude is that that God's intentions are uncertain I have no reason to bend my principles. The theoretical situation you propose is impossible.

I'm not fond of the current pope personally or the things he has done. As for the church, I've never been too fond of them either. It's not that I dislike the pope or churches, I simply have no affection for them.




No. Accepting the deplorable actions of a tyrant, done to not only yourself but to all else, simply because he/she/it has power is something I would never do. Whether it be human or god, "might makes right" is not right. And to quote Dan Barker: "God, you created hell--you can go to hell."

Besides, all of the fun people are in hell.

Edit: Slight revisions done.

Indeed...
Very good point there, Static.

But even if his intentions are uncertain, its probably more likely that you wont be hell'd if you do as he says. Look at it this way, a person can say whatever he wants, but that doenst mean there's a grain of truth in what they say. But if you consistently do as that person wishes, then there might be tiny chance of him rewarding you, even if only because of a whim.

But that chance wont exist at all if you defy him. In that case you can only expect what everyone else is getting, or worse.

Walls of text ftw.

As for the Pope, he's only human and he's bound to make mistakes. It's not like we never had stupid leaders (we're even stupider for electing him twice....either that or his competition was extra stupid)

As I said earlier, I don't think you can count on increasing your odds either. Consider, in your relationships with other people, even if someone was a king and you were his subject, you are still useful to him. Though he has many thousands of followers, you still have a small, but existent, value.

When we compare this to God we have two major scenarios. One where God is all powerful, and one where God is very powerful, but his power is not unlimited. If God is all powerful, no matter what you do, your existence has no value to God. If we also consider that God is unjust, then he has no moral compulsion to do the right thing, so there is no reason why he should hold onto his end of the bargain - even a little bit. If God has limited power, then you do have value to him, and maybe he will stay true to which ever loyal followers strike his whims - but it is also possible that he does not have power over hell, because he is simply king, not God. In this second scenario hell might not be what we perceive it as, so perhaps being sent there would not be as terrible either.

Both of these two scenarios lead to the same conclusion: there is no compelling reason to alter my principles. Besides which, consider the eventuality that God is all powerful, and that he is nothing like he is depicted in traditional religion. Imagine that he truly is just and benevolent. What happens now that you have compromised your belief structure out of fear for a false God, and committed acts you knew to be morally wrong in an attempt to secure a place with him?