Religion

[allegro]

Choosing to "not follow" the Pope does not negate the fact the Pope is chosen by the College of Cardinals to be the leader of the Roman Catholic church for a specific purpose.

From here:

Many people think that Vatican II's primary vision of the Church as a communion was summarized in the phrase, "The People of God," but the Old Testament roots for that phrase, "People of God," "am' Yahweh" actually has as its primary meaning, "Family of God." That term "people," am' literally denotes kinship, so it could be translated "kinsmen" or "Family of God," and that's how most Old Testament scholars translate it. So when we look at the Pope, as we will this morning, we are going to be looking at him, not as some tyrant, not as some authoritarian "know-it-all" and not as some magician who can just kind of concoct a new revelation to satisfy all parties, or anything like that. We are going to be looking at a father figure that Christ has established over the family that He has purchased with His own blood.

Now, there are many misconceptions that people have. They sometimes think that the teaching of the Church is that the Pope is infallible; therefore, he can't sin. That's nonsense, although the present Pontiff goes to confession, I understand, at least once a week. He's got to have something to confess for it to be a valid sacrament administered to him. Others think that he always says the best thing at the right time. No, the Church has never insisted upon the fact that the Pope will always say the best thing at the right time. Rather, the teaching of the Church would allow for the Pope perhaps to postpone out of cowardice, a right thing. Or when he says the truth, when he teaches the truth, he might do so in a way that includes an ambiguity.

So we are responsible as Catholics to understand, not only what the Church teaches, but what the Church doesn't teach to help clear up these misconceptions. The Church teaches in a simple summary that the Holy Father, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, as the successor to Peter and the Vicar of Christ, when he speaks as the universal teacher from the Chair of Peter in defining faith and morals does so with an infallible charism or an infallible gift through the Holy Spirit so that we can give to him the full assent of our intellect and our will, and we can hear the voice of Christ coming to us through the voice of the Pope when he is speaking in this capacity.

Now we are going to flush off on the meanings of this as time goes on, but there are three basic issues or problems. First of all, can we prove Papal Primacy, that is, that the Pope is not just the first among equals but that he has a certain primacy, a unique supremacy in relation to all of the Bishops. We have to begin by showing that Jesus conferred this gift upon Peter. Then secondly, we have to establish the doctrine of Papal succession. If we can prove from the Bible that Peter was granted by Jesus a certain primacy, that doesn't go far enough. We then have to go on to establish Papal succession; that is, Peter had successors to whom would be entrusted the same gift or charism. Then thirdly, we have to establish evidence for Papal infallibility, that is that God grants a gift to the successors of Peter for them, not to give new revelations. The Church insists that no Popes have ever given new revelation. Revelation has been, once and for all deposited by Christ through His Apostles and with the death of the last Apostle came the close of all public revelation. The Popes, in a sense are given the task of preserving and of transmitting, explaining and enforcing that revelation, but not giving new revelation. So that third doctrine is the doctrine of Papal infallibility, that when they transmit, when they explain, when they enforce it, they are granted a charism or a special spiritual gift preserving them from error.

[Elke]

This is going to be one of those insane back-and-forths where we both completely lose the plot and end up disliking each other just a little bit more than we did before, isn't it?

But isn't that "worse" in a sense? He's ordained by divine providence, which in the eyes of many, is greater than the popular vote of men.

Well, yes and no. It's 'worse' in the sense that it's rubish. But it also means, and let's not stray from the point here, that no ordinary catholics chose him. So the whole 'elected' thing you've mentioned about a gazillion time - probably in a misguided attempt to point out that catholics are under any sort of obligation to feel represented by the guy - is absolutely misleading. Brining me back to my point about context. [Notice how hard I'm trying not to drift here?]

The main difference there is that practically nobody is deluded into perceiving the British monarchy as little more than a charade rooted in tradition, and that it's mostly all for show.

Except both marodi and I just pointed out that for catholics, the Pope has a strictly symbolic and administrative function. Just like the queen. In fact, the Queen has a lot more power because she still has to sign laws and dissolve governments. The Pope isn't even really responsible for appointing bishops anymore, it's just the cardinals where he still has something to say.
After the disaster (for the curie, not for the people obviously) of Pope John XXIII single handedly kickstarting the modernisation of the Church (a process still very much getting kickstarted at the moment, no thanks to John Paul II), the office of Pope was severely limited.
That guy, btw, is my kind of Pope. I'd have loved him.

I'll hold to my right to bash the shit out of the royal family if they say something incredibly stupid and ignorant, and I don't need to be English to be qualified to comment on it.

Did I say that? I wrote a lot of stuff, but I don't think I said you couldn't comment on it. I think my main point is that by repeating it so often in the media (and in the blogosphere and on teh interwebz) those ideas get legitimized as if they mean something they don't.

Twitter is "the media?"

Let's not pretend that Twitter is anything like other user based social media. It's the media. Half of it is politicians, celibrities, spin doctors and trend watchers.

Either way, if we're seeing the media in such broad terms, you're basically bemoaning the functionality of the modern world.

How is this news?

Exactly! Rick Santorum went away not because we collectively made a concerted effort to ignore him, but because the possibility of him attaining a seat of power vanished. He no longer has a soap box.

Who gave him the soap box? I did not hear that much of John Huntsman, who I thought was a rather interesting politician. Why's that? Because he had less possibility of attaining power? And does this explain why even in the Belgian press I still have to suffer through every single fart Sarah Palin makes? Because she still has such a large chance at controlling the universe?

You know what I think? I think you're being willfully thick here. I'm not inventing sliced bread, I'm just applying basic media theory on one particular example. Granted, one that irks me more than your average John Huntsman vs. John Perry problem because it's my neck of the woods, but still.

Joe the plumber however was a misinformed puppet that was used during an election cycle and then discarded. We're scraping the bottom of the barrel here with our comparisons.

No, actually, I'm not. My point was about how opinions get bloated because of sensationalist tendencies, and how this is dangerous because lack of context (or in this case: lack of knowledge of how the Church works, as admirably demonstrated by yourself - and this is not meant as an attack, just as an observation) means that non-catholics are inclined to see this as some kind of baromator of what catholics think. While the essence of the catholic Church is that it is incredibly varied and diverse. Haiti, for example, counts roughly 80% of its population as Catholics, baptized and all. Only, at least half of those Haitians practises vôdou. Those are catholics. They really, really don't care about the Pope.

What happened with Joe the Plumber? The media pounced on him, making him interesting for the presidential candidate and his team to pick him up and trot him out. Which the media loved, and paid a lot of attention to. Which made him even more interesting.
And all this time, moderate and left wing democrats (and Belgians, because yes, Joe the Plumber made our headlines as well) saw all their beliefs about hillbilly America justified. Which is grossly unfair. I'm quite certain there are a lot of Republicans (including John McCain) who thought Joe the Plumber was an airhead, and had nothing of value to say.

The Pope used to be someone that people switched the tv on for around Easter, to recieve the papal blessing. They had little prayer cards to go with their rosaries. And they had a vague idea that he was the leader of the catholic Church. But when it came to their religious education, they turned to priests who were instructed by bishops to spin Jesus a certain way. And sometimes those priests came up with a completely different story.
Now the Pop is televized all year round, like an old wrinkled Tilla Tequilla. His speeches and letters are monitored sharply, hoping for some controversial things. When he says something actually worthwhile, like all his talk of the environment and the dangers of capitalism, it gets minimal coverage and causes little debate. But when he says something about sex or gays or condoms: there's the headlines, there's the controversy.
But people still get their religious education from priests, and in school. They don't know the Pope, and they don't listen to him. It's non-catholics who listen, it's non-catholics who get upset and it's catholics who are then told that they're all bigotted assholes. Which in turn doesn't create a lot of love between communities.

Again, if my bishops order me to teach my students that it's okay to be gay, doesn't that mean that the Church's stance on homosexuality isn't one thing?

You're the one saying that no Catholic cares what the pope thinks. You're much more the self appointed representative of the Catholic consensus than I am, and you speak on their behalf.

Let me correct that: I know exactly one catholic who cares what the Pope thinks, and that's my bishop. Also, this is no reply to my comment.

Oh, for a second there I thought you were going to say it was "because he knows his audience." I would say "what's the difference," but why get into semantics.

Well, what do you know. You're postmodern after all!

Again though, you don't think it would make a difference at all if he were to say something to the effect of tolerance towards homosexuals? You don't think that would be received as a surprise that might give some people in "his church" pause?

No. Because so many people already do it on a very local and personal level. And even more people say the reverse on a very local and personal level. If the Pope says gayz are evil and your local priest with whom you have a personal relationship and can discuss these ideas say never mind him, God is love, who are you going to listen to? And sadly, the reverse is also true.

So no.

I also don't think the general concept there is really that radically progressive or tolerant in the 2010s.

You're the one who mentioned Iran. I think we could do a whole lot worse with an archaic institute like the Church. And, as I pointed out earlier in this post, we're still kickstarting modernisation. It's going to take a while. I'm not going to see it happen in my life time, but in my tiny tiny way I'm definitely working on it.

Except the queen is not even traditionally viewed as divinely appointed, but at least she isn't saying when we can and cannot use contraception, nor is she calling gays a "threat." If she did, I'd take the same exception that I take here if someone from England has said "why does anyone who isn't English care what the queen has to say?"

Jinsai, you can read. Okay? Don't play retard. You know perfectly well what I meant: it's a symbolic and administrative function, it has no theological extra weight. PERIOD.

But the Dalai Lama is a clear example of something you claim isn't happening: a religious/philosophical leader getting media attention for saying stuff that's for "good, positive, open and worth while things." The pope should try it some time.

Name ten others, without googling. I dare you.

Also: even he's said some pretty good, positive, open and worth while things. The fact that you think he hasn't further proves my point, really.

Because you might not speak on behalf of all Catholics?

No, I don't. I definitely don't. I don't speak on behalf of the Haitians, or Opus Dei, or the Greek Orthodox Catholic communities, or the Chinese catholics, or the monks of Taizé, or liberation theologists in Colulmbia, or bishops urging witches to be burned in Uganda. But just like me, they're doing whatever the fuck they want. The fact that they do, so loudly and openly, demonstrates that I have a point, I should think.

Because if we all listened to the Pope, don't you think we'd all think the same thing, and have the same faith?

[Elke]

Choosing to "not follow" the Pope does not negate the fact the Pope is chosen by the College of Cardinals to be the leader of the Roman Catholic church for a specific purpose.

And that function, as your quote (with which I have some issues regarding the interpretation of Vaticanum II, but whatever) illustrates, is symbolic and administrative. A 'leader' who doesn't lead, a representative of Jesus on Earth (while Christ is still very much with us, which also makes it a completely superfluous job) and - most of all - bishop of Rome.

But it does give me the excuse to repeat the reason why I chose to be catholic, and that's tradition. The Church is the only christian institution that actually takes into acount all of tradition, including the fallacies and the failures. I find that delightful.

[miss k bee]

Went to a Hillsong service today. Wow some bands would kill for the stage production and sound they had there. Bit like XFactor church. Was an experience.

[Jinsai]

This is going to be one of those insane back-and-forths where we both completely lose the plot and end up disliking each other just a little bit more than we did before, isn't it?

Well, I'll make this short then.

Let's not pretend that Twitter is anything like other user based social media. It's the media. Half of it is politicians, celibrities, spin doctors and trend watchers.

Twitter is not "the media," it's a means by which to speak to people who choose to listen to what you have to say. The fact that you're not acknowledging the distinction here is telling.

Who gave him the soap box?

Rick Santorum got a soap box when he became a viable candidate for the Republican primaries. It meant he might become president, so we all wanted to hear what he had to say. Then, when he turned out to be crazy, he got discarded and we all stopped listening. This is a poor comparison.

I did not hear that much of John Huntsman, who I thought was a rather interesting politician. Why's that? Because he had less possibility of attaining power?

YES! Huntsman was not winning state primaries! Nobody thought he had a chance!

Also, Santorum gained traction because he had the backing of a demographic that you insinuate doesn't exist.

You know what I think? I think you're being willfully thick here.

Great.

No, actually, I'm not. My point was about how opinions get bloated because of sensationalist tendencies, and how this is dangerous because lack of context (or in this case: lack of knowledge of how the Church works, as admirably demonstrated by yourself - and this is not meant as an attack, just as an observation) means that non-catholics are inclined to see this as some kind of baromator of what catholics think.

Ok, for one, you're being presumptuous. Just because I'm an atheist now doesn't mean I wasn't indoctrinated into a church at some point, or that I wasn't sent to religious schools. I've grown up surrounded by Catholics, and I was raised (and forced to confirm as) Episcopalian, which is within spitting distance of the Catholic faith. You're the one who is repeatedly assuring me that no Catholics believe what many Catholics I've met believe.

What happened with Joe the Plumber? The media pounced on him, making him interesting for the presidential candidate and his team to pick him up and trot him out. Which the media loved, and paid a lot of attention to. Which made him even more interesting.

Ok, you can call me thick all you want, but can we stop comparing the attention and fame of Joe the Plumber to the pope regarding relevancy and media attention (and resulting impressions)? Really.

But people still get their religious education from priests, and in school. They don't know the Pope, and they don't listen to him. It's non-catholics who listen, it's non-catholics who get upset and it's catholics who are then told that they're all bigotted assholes. Which in turn doesn't create a lot of love between communities.

and Catholics choose to continue to be catholics. What are the things stopping you from becoming an Episcopalian? In general, they're more progressive, and unlike the Anglican version, there's no monarchy attachment.

Again, if my bishops order me to teach my students that it's okay to be gay, doesn't that mean that the Church's stance on homosexuality isn't one thing?

It means that they're saying something different than the pope. This doesn't need to be unnecessarily complex.

No. Because so many people already do it on a very local and personal level. And even more people say the reverse on a very local and personal level. If the Pope says gayz are evil and your local priest with whom you have a personal relationship and can discuss these ideas say never mind him, God is love, who are you going to listen to? And sadly, the reverse is also true.

You mean the priests who regurgitate the Vatican's stances on issues? Like most of the catholic priests I've met?

You're the one who mentioned Iran. I think we could do a whole lot worse with an archaic institute like the Church.

Sure, because they openly execute homosexuals in Iran, I should give the pope a pass for being a backwards jackass.

Jinsai, you can read. Okay? Don't play retard.

Again, great.

Name ten others, without googling. I dare you.

You dare me?

Also: even he's said some pretty good, positive, open and worth while things. The fact that you think he hasn't further proves my point, really.

I've heard his anti-capitalism stance, accompanied by the ludicrous "solution" he proposed. Cue the golf clap.

No, I don't. I definitely don't. I don't speak on behalf of the Haitians, or Opus Dei, or the Greek Orthodox Catholic communities, or the Chinese catholics, or the monks of Taizé, or liberation theologists in Colulmbia, or bishops urging witches to be burned in Uganda. But just like me, they're doing whatever the fuck they want. The fact that they do, so loudly and openly, demonstrates that I have a point, I should think.

Because if we all listened to the Pope, don't you think we'd all think the same thing, and have the same faith?

I never said all catholics listen to and obey the pope. You're the one who implied that none of them do.

[Elke]

Well, I'll make this short then.

I'm going to make this a hell of a lot shorter.

Twitter is not "the media," it's a means by which to speak to people who choose to listen to what you have to say. The fact that you're not acknowledging the distinction here is telling.

2009
2012

Rick Santorum got a soap box when he became a viable candidate for the Republican primaries. It meant he might become president, so we all wanted to hear what he had to say. Then, when he turned out to be crazy, he got discarded and we all stopped listening. This is a poor comparison.

This was well established in 2005

YES! Huntsman was not winning state primaries! Nobody thought he had a chance!

Really?

Also, Santorum gained traction because he had the backing of a demographic that you insinuate doesn't exist.

Oh, you mean those catholis who follow catholic doctrine so well?

This is Rick Santorum. This is why he's not a by-the-book catholic.
This is why 98% of American catholic women aren't.

Ok, for one, you're being presumptuous. Just because I'm an atheist now doesn't mean I wasn't indoctrinated into a church at some point, or that I wasn't sent to religious schools.

So were most of these people .

Ok, you can call me thick all you want, but can we stop comparing the attention and fame of Joe the Plumber to the pope regarding relevancy and media attention (and resulting impressions)? Really.

Sure.

and Catholics choose to continue to be catholics. What are the things stopping you from becoming an Episcopalian? In general, they're more progressive, and unlike the Anglican version, there's no monarchy attachment.

The closest thing in Belgium to an Episcopalian Church is the Dutch Eposcopalian Church which, you guessed it right, isn't in Belgium.

You mean the priests who regurgitate the Vatican's stances on issues? Like most of the catholic priests I've met?

No, I mean the priests who work in parishes and talk to actual real life people. The ones who tell you what to do when you have a question. I a way, our priests function pretty much like mufti, if you disregard the theological difference between islam and christianity.

Sure, because they openly execute homosexuals in Iran, I should give the pope a pass for being a backwards jackass.

No. Did I say that? You're on a roll with the straw man's today, aren't you?

You dare me?

I challenge you. I kindly ask you. I invite you. I'm sorry if once in a while something gets lost in translation.

I've heard his anti-capitalism stance, accompanied by the ludicrous "solution" he proposed. Cue the golf clap.

Ah, please, by all means, enlighten me. What is his "solution" and why is it ludicrous? (And I do mean this Pope, not communist hunter John Paul II.)

I never said all catholics listen to and obey the pope. You're the one who implied that none of them do.

You're the one who stated that what he's saying non-ex cathedra is relevant because he's the 'elected' head of the Church, and all catholics acknowledge the Pope, so that should mean something, right?

It doesn't. That's my point, and my only point: it doesn't matter, and I dislike the fact that he's actually being legitimized by media outside the Church. That was my observation.

[Oh, and get over yourself with the 'great'. Either you're being wilfully thick, or you're being thick. And I may not like you very much (given that I don't know you and all our interactions seem centered on this type of no-wins discussions) but I respect you enough to know that you're not actually thick. You've called me far worse than wilfully thick over the past seven years (so before you go 'great', I'm relatively sure given the gathered evidence and limited inferences I can make from this, that you don't like me much either but still consider me above the average internet troll). Perhaps that's why I'm so ready to toss in a veiled compliment or backhanded insult once in a while.]

[allegro]

I just keep thinking about this.

[Jinsai]

I'm going to make this a hell of a lot shorter.

Alright I'll top that. Let's get to the point.

Oh, you mean those catholis who follow catholic doctrine so well?

This is Rick Santorum. This is why he's not a by-the-book catholic.
This is why 98% of American catholic women aren't.

I don't give a flying fuck if they "follow catholic doctrine" in what you or anyone else considers to be the proper way. I don't care if you would call them "good catholics." They are self described Catholics, and they're part of the demographic that pays attention to the Pope's bullshit. Somehow, we've managed to bring up Rick Santorum repeatedly in this thread without mentioning the time that he said Kennedy's speech (the one where he insisted that as president he would not bow down to the pope) made him "want to puke." This guy isn't a relic from a bygone era, he was hoping to be elected president of the United States last month, and a frighteningly large demographic (comprised mostly of "bad Catholics") was pushing for that.

So I do not care if all the "real" Catholics out there are the ones who see the pope as a ridiculous symbolic figure, think gays are groovy, and have a generally progressive outlook on things. If the pope had said "gee, you know, it's about time this church moved into the 21st century, so enough with the anti-gay stuff already. Grow up." I would have gladly given Rick Santorum his soap box back for another fifteen minutes just to hear him respond, and I would hope the media would be there when it happens.

That's why I care what the pope has to say about it, even though I'm neither a catholic nor a homosexual.

I challenge you. I kindly ask you. I invite you.

How about this first. Name me ten other Catholic religious figures who hold more international sway and power than the pope. I dare you. I challenge you. I also don't really care anymore, but I kindly ask you while I'm at it. I beseech thee.

Ah, please, by all means, enlighten me. What is his "solution" and why is it ludicrous? (And I do mean this Pope, not communist hunter John Paul II.)

Google it. This conversation is already too long.
...and just to clarify, I don't dislike you Elke, even if I've gotten extremely frustrated during these sorts of arguments. At the end of the day, I take the vast majority of this, including disagreements which I find highly disagreeable, with a grain of salt.

[allegro]

I was raised by a Super Catholic mom who was excommunicated after she remarried and who doesn't even really recognize the current American Roman Catholic church. The Catholic "traditions" of her time are pretty much gone. There were still Latin Masses when she was growing up. Not that we NEED Latin Masses, and not that some change isn't good. HOWEVER, certain rules of the Catholic church will NEVER change and the Pope is there to make sure of that.

From the above link that I quoted (i guess I shoulda used highlighter pen):

"The Church insists that no Popes have ever given new revelation. Revelation has been, once and for all deposited by Christ through His Apostles and with the death of the last Apostle came the close of all public revelation. The Popes, in a sense are given the task of preserving and of transmitting, explaining and enforcing that revelation, but not giving new revelation. So that third doctrine is the doctrine of Papal infallibility, that when they transmit, when they explain, when they enforce it, they are granted a charism or a special spiritual gift preserving them from error."

So, you can go ahead and be pro-gay marriage or pro-choice or pro-female priest or whatever, but the Pope will tell you that you aren't Catholic. Hell, the head priest at G's family's Catholic church says that AT EVERY MASS. (G won't set foot in a Catholic church except for necessary family funerals. But I digress.)

Not that Catholic Popes don't have a history of changing the rules for their own convenience or special purposes. Eating meat on Fridays and celibacy comes to mind.

But people here travel all the way to Italy to get stuff blessed at St. Peter's and they cry when they see the Pope. I saw JP II do a outdoor Mass in Hamtramck Michigan entirely in Polish and I was surrounded by fainting weeping people, so maybe the U.S. is breeding a different kind of Catholic (what with all the Latino and Polish we have, here, who follow Catholic rules and the Pope TO THE LETTER).

[Elke]

Nevermind. [/exit]

[allegro]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1...riage-law.html

[Elke]

Saudi religious leader calls for gang rape of Syrian women

Apparently, the Qur'an would back this. However, it seems like this is also Zina so I'm not sure how the former is tenable as a position. I also found this interesting.

edit: While I'm at it:

The Global Religious Landscape: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Major Religious Groups as of 2010

edit 2: And why not test your knowledge of Christmas traditions world wide? I scored a very disappointing 8/16, but learned a lot. Quite interesting!

[Ryan]

Vatican Christmas Shocker! Pope says child rape isn't that bad, was normal back in his day

[allegro]

Saudi religious leader calls for gang rape of Syrian women [SIZE=2][FONT=arial]

dead link?

Ugh, Islam is so not good for women.

[marodi]

dead link?

Ugh, Islam is so not good for women.

I read the original story. This is why it was taken down: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/cler...tory_debunked/

[Deus Ex Machina]

So, you can go ahead and be pro-gay marriage or pro-choice or pro-female priest or whatever, but the Pope will tell you that you aren't Catholic.

My 2 cents on Catholicism and Catholics, even though you've already heard it before.


Allowing the Pope or the Catholic heirarchy to define Catholicism is a lot like allowing the Ayatollah or Amedenijhad to define all Iranian Muslims. Yes, these people are leaders, and yes, these people do enjoy support from large groups of the people they claim to speak for. But letting them speak for all the constituents they claim to speak for ignores an enourmous amount of people.


Just as there are many many Iranian Muslims that hate the direction their country has taken (remember the Iranian Green Revolution ?) There are many many self-identified Catholics that don't care much for what the Pope has to say or has a lot of respect for the heirarchy in general. Take these nuns for example:


http://jezebel.com/5915210/reps-for-...at-the-vatican


Those are Catholic nuns, outfits and everything, nunning it up day in and day out, and they say that God calls them to stand up for gay rights, and that they are still Catholics. They say that this is something their whole church should be doing. In my mind, they're right, so why would I classify them as non-Catholic because the Pope, who I don't particularly respect, tells me to?


The Catholic church is a fractured organization. You've got the Conservative hierarchy and their adherents in one area, and you've got the Social Justice and Progressive movement in the other. It's a generalization to describe the hierarchy as conservative, there are some progressives that have made their way up the ladder, but it's more or less true the further up the chain you go.


So the idea that the Catholic church is a unified monolith, all thinking the same thing or tacitly complying isn't a very accurate picture of what's really going on. While it may not be the norm, there's a big precedent for someone self-identifying as Catholic but not sharing the views of the conservative hierarchy. They consciously choose to identify as Catholic in a bottom up, 'This is Our Church' method to change the church. It may not work, but not including that phenomenon in a description of the Catholic church is a major omission in my opinion.

[allegro]

It may not work, but not including that phenomenon in a description of the Catholic church is a major omission in my opinion.

The Pope and the heirarchy's main purpose has always been to "define" because it's always been assumed that parishioners are unable to interpret scripture and the holy word on their own.

Have you been to Catholic church, lately? Each time I have, in the last few years (again, for family stuff, not by my own choice), it is STRESSED beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you are not down with the church's stance against gays and against abortion, you cannot even receive the sacraments unless you confess your sins of going against the church and even then if you constantly go against the church you ain't getting away with it.

[marodi]

Why are you there if you can't even respect it and you're forced to lie to your own church?

Hope. That it will see the light, eventually.
Faith. That things can change even if it takes time and efforts.
Stubbornness. The good old "I'm right and you're wrong" thing.
Laziness. It takes effort to learn a new way or worshiping.

Meh.

edit: @allegro : never forget that we're Catholics; it's ingrained in us that we have to suffer for our faith.

[allegro]

Suffer yeah, well whatever.

[Elke]

I read the original story. This is why it was taken down: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/cler...tory_debunked/

Now I'm really glad that I looked all that backinfo up. Thanks marodi.

[Elke]

Have you been to Catholic church, lately? Each time I have, in the last few years (again, for family stuff, not by my own choice), it is STRESSED beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you are not down with the church's stance against gays and against abortion, you cannot even receive the sacraments unless you confess your sins of going against the church and even then if you constantly go against the church you ain't getting away with it.

But that was the essence of what I was trying to say: that is your local priest /bishop interpreting it that way. My bishops make me teach students that homosexuality is something to be accepted, and that anticonceptives are really important. I have to teach sex ed as part of my catholic religion course.

Local ideas, local inspiration and interpretation. Deus said it really well.

[Elke]

An excerpt from Frans De Waals The Bonobo and the Atheist was published on Salon.com, and it is an interesting read: Has militant atheism become a religion? is - unlike its title implies - a serious examination of the question of dogmatism.

Why “sleep furiously” unless there are inner demons to be kept at bay? In the same way that firefighters are sometimes stealth arsonists and homophobes closet homosexuals, do some atheists secretly long for the certitude of religion? Take Christopher Hitchens, the late British author of “God Is Not Great.” Hitchens was outraged by the dogmatism of religion, yet he himself had moved from Marxism (he was a Trotskyist) to Greek Orthodox Christianity, then to American Neo-Conservatism, followed by an “antitheist” stance that blamed all of the world’s troubles on religion. Hitchens thus swung from the left to the right, from anti–Vietnam War to cheerleader of the Iraq War, and from pro to contra God. He ended up favoring Dick Cheney over Mother Teresa. Some people crave dogma, yet have trouble deciding on its contents. They become serial dogmatists. Hitchens admitted, “There are days when I miss my old convictions as if they were an amputated limb,” thus implying that he had entered a new life stage marked by doubt and reflection. Yet, all he seemed to have done was sprout a fresh dogmatic limb.

[Amaro]

Is this the closest thing we have to a spirituality type thread? I wanna hear what people here think about The Collective Unconscious and maybe Idealism. And other shit.

[Space Suicide]

This can be misconstrued as ignorant but just about every person I see, hear or read that has been Born Again are super annoying and never shut about about religion for a second. A perfect example is a girl I went to college with, who was an incredible designer, took years at the Art Institute in our state and made great grades but she quit out due to being Born Again and "God's calling wasn't in design work." I find that odd because you have a talented gift but throw it away for nothing. Seems like a real waste to me. Even in religious argument, didn't God give you that wonderful gift? Everything she says now relates to God, the bible, religion and doing work for Churches. Her latest endeavors find her in Africa for a whole year to translate Bibles? Her nice tattoo work of a pin-up zombie has also been re-worked and inked to be that of a lantern and a scripture quote.

I hate seeing people waste their potential and swear everything they do in the day, week, month and probably years to religion. It makes you lack an identity and makes you rather dull to be with unless you're more of the same. I just don't see why some people overdo it or get fanatical when they're Born Again. Anyone else have thoughts on people like this?

[Amaro]

This can be misconstrued as ignorant but just about every person I see, hear or read that has been Born Again are super annoying and never shut about about religion for a second. A perfect example is a girl I went to college with, who was an incredible designer, took years at the Art Institute in our state and made great grades but she quit out due to being Born Again and "God's calling wasn't in design work." I find that odd because you have a talented gift but throw it away for nothing. Seems like a real waste to me. Even in religious argument, didn't God give you that wonderful gift? Everything she says now relates to God, the bible, religion and doing work for Churches. Her latest endeavors find her in Africa for a whole year to translate Bibles? Her nice tattoo work of a pin-up zombie has also been re-worked and inked to be that of a lantern and a scripture quote.

I hate seeing people waste their potential and swear everything they do in the day, week, month and probably years to religion. It makes you lack an identity and makes you rather dull to be with unless you're more of the same. I just don't see why some people overdo it or get fanatical when they're Born Again. Anyone else have thoughts on people like this?

I think when somebody believes in something as significant as God and subscribe to specifics of a religion, they ultimately believe their consciousness isn't all directed by what they naturally think. They take signs of internal changes or even moods as God speaking to them from within, as they submit to the idea that there's another controller. For someone on the outside looking in at this person--that belief system is just distracting from whatever they once thought highly of and took to, such as a strong talent like that.

[Elke]

Is this the closest thing we have to a spirituality type thread? I wanna hear what people here think about The Collective Unconscious and maybe Idealism. And other shit.

Yeah, this is the closest thing we have. Sadly. (See post you responded to, which I'm not going to respond to, because I'm not actually a masochist.)

Do you mean idealism Idealism, as in: Hegelian philosophy? If not, I'm kinda interested in knowing what you mean.

[Amaro]

Yeah, this is the closest thing we have. Sadly. (See post you responded to, which I'm not going to respond to, because I'm not actually a masochist.)

Do you mean idealism Idealism, as in: Hegelian philosophy? If not, I'm kinda interested in knowing what you mean.

Can you please explain the masochist angle for you here? I'm not into the general subject much apart from my Christian upbringing, nor would I claim to study religion recreationally, though still I may know what you meant.

RE: idealism/Idealism... I'm just not sure, because both articles bring up Hegel, one far less than the other. I'm just starting to venture into these theories, hence why I brought it up here. One night I was web-surfing about consciousness & death and came to theories of the like, and they struck a chord for me. Maybe you can help differentiate the two for me (idealism & Idealism).

[Elke]

I only know the traditional philosophical angle, so this might not be what you have in mind, but in general idealism is the philosophical idea that a thing exists because it exists in someone's mind. This can be far reaching, like Berkeley's theory that everything that exists, exists only in the mind of God. There are no seperate material entities, there is only God's mind, and within it we are. But it can also be really open, like when you sincerely doubt that we can ever know the world as it is, because we'll always be locked up in our own subjective minds.

Idealism with a capital I refers to the German idealism of (amongst others) Kant and Hegel. Kant stated that while things might exist outside our mind, we have no access to those things: das Ding an sich ist ein Unbekanntes, the thing itself is unknown. We know it through our own categories of space and time, of subject and object, and so forth.
Hegel goes a step further and he sees the entire universe as a manifestation of a single mind, Geist, that doesn't know itself until man began to philosophize. The world-mind awakens to itself because the human mind provides it with the possibility of examining itself.

Does any of that sound familiar?

[As for the masochist comment: I don't like it when people find me a waste of my potential because I happen to believe something different from them. And I've learned not to argue with them, because while they usually think of me as the ignorant one who's unwilling to learn, almost unfailingly it's them. So.]

[aggroculture]

Can someone explain to me the Christian concept of judgement day?
Everyone will be judged, the good sent to heaven, and the bad sent to hell. Doesn't this already happen when people die?
Is it that all living humans will also be killed and judged, and then there will be no more humans after that? Christ will come again and the world will end?

[Timinator]

On Judgment Day the souls of the dead will be reunited with their physical bodies and ultimate Judgment will be carried out on them and those living.
Note that this varies across all the many forms of Christianity, though. The Wikipedia entry is pretty decent.