Moderator: Community Team
crispybits wrote:And a little humour from the Daily Mash:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/inte ... 3031462640
PLAYER57832 wrote:The fact that he is calling himself "Francis" gives one hope.
crispybits wrote:It's not just complicity, by definition the religion is fascist itself. It's hardly a surprise that it finds like-minded types to share afternoon coffee and cake with.
chang50 wrote: don't know which is worse the widespread paedophilia and cover ups
chang50 wrote:the complicity with Fascism.
thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:The fact that he is calling himself "Francis" gives one hope.
I'm not hopeful. Of the various papal candidates, I think he was the worst choice (or second worst choice). I'm not saying we needed to have an African pope for the first time in 1,500 years. I'm saying we needed to have a more liberal pope (at least a little bit). I thought they would go back to that after Benedict, but apparently not.
crispybits wrote:It's not just complicity, by definition the religion is fascist itself. It's hardly a surprise that it finds like-minded types to share afternoon coffee and cake with.
PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:The fact that he is calling himself "Francis" gives one hope.
I'm not hopeful. Of the various papal candidates, I think he was the worst choice (or second worst choice). I'm not saying we needed to have an African pope for the first time in 1,500 years. I'm saying we needed to have a more liberal pope (at least a little bit). I thought they would go back to that after Benedict, but apparently not.
I have hope, but I think that expecting the church to go immediately more liberal would be doing too much, too soon.
What gives me hope is that if he truly does take the church back to real fundamentals of caring about one's brother and poverty, it will begin to set the stage where those other issues can be considered.
Ultimately, liberalism is really just about putting your care for other people above structure or rules, looking for real answers from almost any source (not talking political liberalism which as we have discussed is often just left wing dictating). That is actually the very change Christ brought to the Jewish faith. You see that point over and over in Christ's teachings, whether it is healing on the sabbath or saying that Mary Magdelene was right to listen to his words instead of just helping with the dishes.
The vow to poverty is getting a lot of attention. It can be a very meaningful stance, or it can be a kind of arrogance, even competition. Sort of "praying on the street corner" instead of in private.
What I find interesting is things like his chastising priests who refused to baptise children of single mothers, and the way in which he apparently chastized them... as I understand it that they were putting rules and their own perceived [false] piety above people and serving God truly.
Anyway, time will tell.
PLAYER57832 wrote:crispybits wrote:It's not just complicity, by definition the religion is fascist itself. It's hardly a surprise that it finds like-minded types to share afternoon coffee and cake with.
No more than your idea that anyone with faith is obviously not thinking straight.
No single idea is fascism, fascism is about not allowing opposition. Most modern Christians are no less willing to let others be than atheists.
The article was humerous, and largely because it did have just enough truth in it to be painful.. but expanded. Trying to paint is as anything else is beneath you crispy.
PLAYER57832 wrote:The fact that he is calling himself "Francis" gives one hope.
thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:crispybits wrote:It's not just complicity, by definition the religion is fascist itself. It's hardly a surprise that it finds like-minded types to share afternoon coffee and cake with.
No more than your idea that anyone with faith is obviously not thinking straight.
No single idea is fascism, fascism is about not allowing opposition. Most modern Christians are no less willing to let others be than atheists.
The article was humerous, and largely because it did have just enough truth in it to be painful.. but expanded. Trying to paint is as anything else is beneath you crispy.
The problem with crispy and chang is that they are ignoring history. They are using the support of some Catholics and some priests and some bishops in Nazi Germany for the Nazis to paint the Catholic Church, in its entirety, as supportive of Nazi Germany. That simply isn't true. They are going to point to Pope John Paul's apology as evidence that the Catholic Church acknowledged its support of Nazi Germany. But that wasn't what John Paul apologized for - he apologized for anti-Semitism promoted by the Catholic Church across history (i.e. from the founding of the Church forward).
Basically, there were some portion of priests and bishops (and Catholics) in Nazi Germany who supported the Nazis. There were a lot of other priests, bishops and Catholics who did not support Nazi Germany. Some or all of those people either escaped or were killed by Nazi Germany. The Nazis killed Catholics, because of their religion, in Poland. Catholics from all over the world, including priests, fought in armies against Nazi Germany.
In any event, this is a fun way for atheists to try to denigrate the Catholic Church. There are much better ways to do so that have some basis in fact.
crispybits wrote:thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:crispybits wrote:It's not just complicity, by definition the religion is fascist itself. It's hardly a surprise that it finds like-minded types to share afternoon coffee and cake with.
No more than your idea that anyone with faith is obviously not thinking straight.
No single idea is fascism, fascism is about not allowing opposition. Most modern Christians are no less willing to let others be than atheists.
The article was humerous, and largely because it did have just enough truth in it to be painful.. but expanded. Trying to paint is as anything else is beneath you crispy.
The problem with crispy and chang is that they are ignoring history. They are using the support of some Catholics and some priests and some bishops in Nazi Germany for the Nazis to paint the Catholic Church, in its entirety, as supportive of Nazi Germany. That simply isn't true. They are going to point to Pope John Paul's apology as evidence that the Catholic Church acknowledged its support of Nazi Germany. But that wasn't what John Paul apologized for - he apologized for anti-Semitism promoted by the Catholic Church across history (i.e. from the founding of the Church forward).
Basically, there were some portion of priests and bishops (and Catholics) in Nazi Germany who supported the Nazis. There were a lot of other priests, bishops and Catholics who did not support Nazi Germany. Some or all of those people either escaped or were killed by Nazi Germany. The Nazis killed Catholics, because of their religion, in Poland. Catholics from all over the world, including priests, fought in armies against Nazi Germany.
In any event, this is a fun way for atheists to try to denigrate the Catholic Church. There are much better ways to do so that have some basis in fact.
OK, maybe "by definition" was a touch strong, but the cathoilc church runs along lines inherently similar to fascist politics. There is an overall dictator (the pope), oppressing the population by means of strict controls (heaven and hell), and suppressing the opposition through terror (anyone not "one of us" is going to hell). Further to that there is a stirring up of religious identity in a very divisive way, similar to secular nationalism and racism. All of this is by modern actions, if we go into history then there are even greater parallels, especially in suppressing the opposition, but of course the response you'll give is the typical "what the church did in the past isn't relevant any more". I call BS to that, what any organisation does is relevant when the philosophy of that organisation is largely identical now as it was then, and the doctrines and teachings of the catholic church are largely unchanged for hundreds of years on the primary points.
thegreekdog wrote:
I've never thought the Catholic Church got away from helping the poor. I think the layperson view is that more time is spent on social issues such as homosexuality and abortion, but I think that is a public perception more than reality. I would like for less time to be spent on those types of issues if only so that the public perception changes a little. I don't expect the church to say "gay marriage is okay" and I don't want them to say "abortion is okay." I also want the church to address, correctly, the pedophilia issues. I don't know what the new pope's stance on the latter issue is.
thegreekdog wrote:
The Catholic Church is run like any other religious organization and that could be considered facist, if you want. ?
crispybits wrote:Not "any other religious organisation" but I'll skip that point as it's largely a tangent.
Saying "you didn't oppose this lot doing those bad things so why do you oppose that lot doing these bad things" is invalid. It's like saying "you didn't say anything here about the Norway mass shootings, so you're not allowed to comment on Sandy Hook". I'm allowed to comment on whatever I want to comment on, and the hypocrisy you imply would only exist if, when asked a direct question about something similar I took a completely different stance without good justification for that or failed to condemn it at all.
crispybits wrote:I do not believe the church is necessary at all. I believe that if the church, if all the churches everywhere along with all their screwed up fairy tales, if they all disappeared right now and left nothing but a vaccuum, then society would continue to function. In fact I believe that society would function a whole lot better without them.
crispybits wrote:So what do I want the church to do? I want it to do exactly what Jesus said, sell everything it owns, give up every shred of political, financial and wordly influence and power, and stop doing harm to the world with it's BS stories about some ultimate absolute truth it can't even demonstrate but which it claims gives it the right to spread harmful messages like "don't wear condoms" to the most AIDS ravaged continent in the world, or "abortion is murder" to societies that then outlaw abortion leading to the deaths of women when pregnancies go wrong, or extra children being put into the system because the parents either can't or don't want to cope with them, or a million other disguting "moral teachings" that do more harm than good. I want every religious person on earth to start spending the time and money they spend on being righteous and pious to actually help people. I don't care if they do it because they think they'll get a reward after they die even, they can carry on believing that all they want, but all the time and energy and money people spend on religion would go a million miles towards actually making this world more just, and kind, and fair, and good. THAT's what I want.
crispybits wrote:For religion to just disappear. Now.
thegreekdog wrote:crispybits wrote:Not "any other religious organisation" but I'll skip that point as it's largely a tangent.
Saying "you didn't oppose this lot doing those bad things so why do you oppose that lot doing these bad things" is invalid. It's like saying "you didn't say anything here about the Norway mass shootings, so you're not allowed to comment on Sandy Hook". I'm allowed to comment on whatever I want to comment on, and the hypocrisy you imply would only exist if, when asked a direct question about something similar I took a completely different stance without good justification for that or failed to condemn it at all.
It's perfectly valid. It's not valid to use it as a counterpoint to your argument that the church has done bad things. I acknowledge that the church has done bad things. What it is perfectly valid to use is as a way to show hypocrisy. I'm showing that you're a hypocrit. You will criticize the Catholic Church's history and demand that it do something, but you will not criticize a country and demand that it do something.
It's like if you said "Bill should go to jail for rape." And then I said, "I agree."
Then I said, "Should Jim also go to jail for rape?" And you respond, "No, I don't hold Jim to the same standards as Bill." That's hypocritical.
Only if you say that religion and government are the same thing. In many ways they are similar, but they are not the same and holding them to different standards isn't hypocritical as long as the standards you hold them to are cogniscent of their different natures. A better analogy would be:
"should Bill, a trained cop, go to jail for raising his gun and deliberately pulling the trigger and shooting a 4 year old." Yes
"should Jim, a 4 year old who thinks the gun in his hand is just like any of his toy guns, go to jail for raising that gun and deliberately pulling the trigger and shooting another 4 year old?" No
And besides, as I already said, I will criticise countries. But this is a topic regarding religion. Did you miss the bit where I said that both the UK and US have done shitty things? Did you miss the bit where I said I think they should do everything possible to make reparations for them? I'll add that we should all be working towards changing the nature of the governments to ensure shitty things are not done again.crispybits wrote:I do not believe the church is necessary at all. I believe that if the church, if all the churches everywhere along with all their screwed up fairy tales, if they all disappeared right now and left nothing but a vaccuum, then society would continue to function. In fact I believe that society would function a whole lot better without them.
Right. So your argument is not just that the Church has done bad things. Your argument is that the Church has done bad things plus you don't like what it stands for (apart from the bad things) and you don't like what it believes in and you don't like its effect on society (apart from the bad things). And that is why I said above that your motivations for your criticism of the Catholic Church go beyond "they supported Nazis." It is inclusive of "they do/say/preach things I don't agree with and think are stupid (and do more harm than good... which we can address in the course of where I think this conversation is going)."
No, again you're not actually reading what I'm writing, just putting words in my mouth contrary to what I'm actually saying. Yes it's true that I don't like religion, but that isn't what makes it different to anything else, because very often I don't like government either. The difference isn't like / dislike, it's NECESSITY. I think we NEED government to have the kind of society that works best, I do not think we NEED religion for that at all. I can quite easily picture a society with no religion that works just fine. It's an optional extra that if it worked properly would be beneficial, but which always seems to get corrupted and converted into something damaging. As an optional extra it can be discarded.crispybits wrote:So what do I want the church to do? I want it to do exactly what Jesus said, sell everything it owns, give up every shred of political, financial and wordly influence and power, and stop doing harm to the world with it's BS stories about some ultimate absolute truth it can't even demonstrate but which it claims gives it the right to spread harmful messages like "don't wear condoms" to the most AIDS ravaged continent in the world, or "abortion is murder" to societies that then outlaw abortion leading to the deaths of women when pregnancies go wrong, or extra children being put into the system because the parents either can't or don't want to cope with them, or a million other disguting "moral teachings" that do more harm than good. I want every religious person on earth to start spending the time and money they spend on being righteous and pious to actually help people. I don't care if they do it because they think they'll get a reward after they die even, they can carry on believing that all they want, but all the time and energy and money people spend on religion would go a million miles towards actually making this world more just, and kind, and fair, and good. THAT's what I want.
Very impassioned. Again, my question is why the Catholic Church (or any religion) and not the United Kingdom and the United States?
Hopefully now I've said it twice you understand my position, if not just say socrispybits wrote:For religion to just disappear. Now.
This is a separate item which I've argued with about others before. Unlike in other threads (heh), I'll post my thoughts now (incomplete though they may be). I believe that too much emphasis is placed on the role of religion in prior atrocities and wars. It's like how too much emphasis is placed on race in achieving entrance at university. The real motivation behind wars and atrocities is not religion, it is power and money. With some very limited exceptions, atrocities committed in the name of the religion would have, in my opinion, been committed without the religion existing. Any war or atrocity you bring up I could point out the non-religious motivation behind the war or atrocity.
You could also point out the resistance to gay marriage or abortion as being religious tendencies, but that also isn't entirely based on religion. Gay marriage proponents can also be religious (e.g. Andrew Sullivan... e.g. me). And gay marriage detractors can also be atheists.
crispybits wrote:[
is there anything that religion gives to society that is not also given by secular sources?
PLAYER57832 wrote:crispybits wrote: is there anything that religion gives to society that is not also given by secular sources?
Yes, faith.
(serious answer, not a joke).
thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:crispybits wrote:It's not just complicity, by definition the religion is fascist itself. It's hardly a surprise that it finds like-minded types to share afternoon coffee and cake with.
No more than your idea that anyone with faith is obviously not thinking straight.
No single idea is fascism, fascism is about not allowing opposition. Most modern Christians are no less willing to let others be than atheists.
The article was humerous, and largely because it did have just enough truth in it to be painful.. but expanded. Trying to paint is as anything else is beneath you crispy.
The problem with crispy and chang is that they are ignoring history. They are using the support of some Catholics and some priests and some bishops in Nazi Germany for the Nazis to paint the Catholic Church, in its entirety, as supportive of Nazi Germany. That simply isn't true. They are going to point to Pope John Paul's apology as evidence that the Catholic Church acknowledged its support of Nazi Germany. But that wasn't what John Paul apologized for - he apologized for anti-Semitism promoted by the Catholic Church across history (i.e. from the founding of the Church forward).
Basically, there were some portion of priests and bishops (and Catholics) in Nazi Germany who supported the Nazis. There were a lot of other priests, bishops and Catholics who did not support Nazi Germany. Some or all of those people either escaped or were killed by Nazi Germany. The Nazis killed Catholics, because of their religion, in Poland. Catholics from all over the world, including priests, fought in armies against Nazi Germany.
In any event, this is a fun way for atheists to try to denigrate the Catholic Church. There are much better ways to do so that have some basis in fact.
thegreekdog wrote:crispybits wrote:Not "any other religious organisation" but I'll skip that point as it's largely a tangent.
Saying "you didn't oppose this lot doing those bad things so why do you oppose that lot doing these bad things" is invalid. It's like saying "you didn't say anything here about the Norway mass shootings, so you're not allowed to comment on Sandy Hook". I'm allowed to comment on whatever I want to comment on, and the hypocrisy you imply would only exist if, when asked a direct question about something similar I took a completely different stance without good justification for that or failed to condemn it at all.
It's perfectly valid. It's not valid to use it as a counterpoint to your argument that the church has done bad things. I acknowledge that the church has done bad things. What it is perfectly valid to use is as a way to show hypocrisy. I'm showing that you're a hypocrit. You will criticize the Catholic Church's history and demand that it do something, but you will not criticize a country and demand that it do something.
It's like if you said "Bill should go to jail for rape." And then I said, "I agree."
Then I said, "Should Jim also go to jail for rape?" And you respond, "No, I don't hold Jim to the same standards as Bill." That's hypocritical.
crispybits wrote: I think we NEED government to have the kind of society that works best, I do not think we NEED religion for that at all. I can quite easily picture a society with no religion that works just fine.
2dimes wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:crispybits wrote: is there anything that religion gives to society that is not also given by secular sources?
Yes, faith.
(serious answer, not a joke).
Not a joke but not correct either. I have spoke with many people completely void of the burden of religion who have stories of faith. Some even involve faith in God during an event from a person who is agnostic or perhaps even considers themselves atheist.
Religion is either a group of people sharing beliefs or teaching them. Just like any club or organization.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users