Let's have an epic discussion about religion!

[thegreekdog]

How is TGD's justification wrong or undesirable?

Personally I would not want to be shown to be believing in something that has no basis in reasoning, even if that reasoning is self contained. (i.e. I believe in God because I feel his presence etc.)

From what I've read, he adheres to Catholicism in particular because he intends to maintain good relations with his momma and others. Furthermore, staying connecting with one's social network brings many benefits. Converting to a different religion incurs high costs because a new social network needs to be developed, and the old one might be damaged beyond repair.

That seems reasonable to me. To destroy those opportunities in order to be atheist or a Muslim doesn't seem reasonable.

Is that a reason to be a Catholic? Or to pretend you are a Catholic regardless of your actual beliefs?

I think I get what you're saying. If I don't believe the pope is the holiest person on earth, that makes me not believe in Catholicism so I'm pretending to be Catholic. I guess that makes me a non-Catholic, although I would urge you to take a look at the Apostles Creed which sets out the tenets of Catholicism. I believe in all those things.

[b.k. barunt]

Throughout history there have been many actions and atrocities that have been done in the name of the religion. But if you study these actions and atrocities, you will understand that religion was not the motivating factor, but a tool. Religion was the justification, but it most certainly was not the reason. Now, having typed all that, I will note that I'm not proud of the Catholic Church and some of its activities, but I'm certainly aware that those activities were committed by men for the purpose of advancing their own wealth, stature, and power.

Let's take the Spanish Inquisition as an example. First, but less important, was that there were not a lot of deaths associated with the inquisition. Second, and far more important, were the reasons behind the inquisition. The Spanish Inquisition served the purposes of the King and Queen of Spain... it was carried out by church members but at the direction of the monarchy and was used to consolidated power and wealth. Were there religious elements of the Spanish Inquisition? Sure, the inquisition targeted certain religious groups (Jews and Muslims). But the reason behind the Inquisition was not "let's kill or expel everyone who's not Catholic."

Similarly, the Crusades were ostensibly about conquering the holy lands. But they were also a power grab and a wealth grab. So what was the real motivation? Power and wealth or religion? To the people who led the crusades, it was power and wealth. To the people who voluntarily joined (there were not many) it was religion.

As for the rest of your post (urging me to go to the source), I've heard similar arguments from women I've dated and some of my friends. My personal life has not been adversely affected by my practicing of the Catholic religion. If and when that happens, I'll take another look. Sadly, the Spanish Inquisition is not on my list of reasons not to be a Catholic. Similarly, September 11th was not on my list of reasons not to be a Muslim (when I was considering converting). The closest I've come to converting was the Church's insistence on defending priests accused (rightfully) of child abuse... and that didn't get me there.

Oh, and my mom's Italian.

Ok so the church allowed these atrocities to be done in the name of religion - why would anyone associate themselves with such a church? They betrayed the Apostlolic Creed which you claim to believe in so why would you take part in that betrayal by being a part of the organization that allowed it? To say that all that's in the past isn't good enough - to my knowledge no pope has ever judged these actions to be atrocities, as to do so would threaten the tenet of papal infallibility.

If you look in the Bible in Revelations 17 and 18 you will find the Roman Catholic Church. She is identified as Mystery Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations. Check it out; verse 4 of chapter 17 in particular:

4 And i heard another voice
from heaven, saying Come out
of her, my people, that ye be not
partakers of her sins, and that
ye receive not of her plagues.

[thegreekdog]

Throughout history there have been many actions and atrocities that have been done in the name of the religion. But if you study these actions and atrocities, you will understand that religion was not the motivating factor, but a tool. Religion was the justification, but it most certainly was not the reason. Now, having typed all that, I will note that I'm not proud of the Catholic Church and some of its activities, but I'm certainly aware that those activities were committed by men for the purpose of advancing their own wealth, stature, and power.

Let's take the Spanish Inquisition as an example. First, but less important, was that there were not a lot of deaths associated with the inquisition. Second, and far more important, were the reasons behind the inquisition. The Spanish Inquisition served the purposes of the King and Queen of Spain... it was carried out by church members but at the direction of the monarchy and was used to consolidated power and wealth. Were there religious elements of the Spanish Inquisition? Sure, the inquisition targeted certain religious groups (Jews and Muslims). But the reason behind the Inquisition was not "let's kill or expel everyone who's not Catholic."

Similarly, the Crusades were ostensibly about conquering the holy lands. But they were also a power grab and a wealth grab. So what was the real motivation? Power and wealth or religion? To the people who led the crusades, it was power and wealth. To the people who voluntarily joined (there were not many) it was religion.

As for the rest of your post (urging me to go to the source), I've heard similar arguments from women I've dated and some of my friends. My personal life has not been adversely affected by my practicing of the Catholic religion. If and when that happens, I'll take another look. Sadly, the Spanish Inquisition is not on my list of reasons not to be a Catholic. Similarly, September 11th was not on my list of reasons not to be a Muslim (when I was considering converting). The closest I've come to converting was the Church's insistence on defending priests accused (rightfully) of child abuse... and that didn't get me there.

Oh, and my mom's Italian.

Ok so the church allowed these atrocities to be done in the name of religion - why would anyone associate themselves with such a church? They betrayed the Apostlolic Creed which you claim to believe in so why would you take part in that betrayal by being a part of the organization that allowed it? To say that all that's in the past isn't good enough - to my knowledge no pope has ever judged these actions to be atrocities, as to do so would threaten the tenet of papal infallibility.

If you look in the Bible in Revelations 17 and 18 you will find the Roman Catholic Church. She is identified as Mystery Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations. Check it out; verse 4 of chapter 17 in particular:

4 And i heard another voice
from heaven, saying Come out
of her, my people, that ye be not
partakers of her sins, and that
ye receive not of her plagues.

I have not been betrayed or led astray by the Catholic Church. We can have this discussion about any and all institutions (which may be your point), but unless and until I've been betrayed by the Church, I remain unconvinced that atrocities that happend 500 years ago should bother me such that I abandon my religion.

And as Jesus said, "On this rock [Peter] I will build my church[.]" And Peter and Paul created the Catholic Church. So either the Catholic Church is the Mother of Harlots and Abominations, or it is the church that Jesus wanted Peter and Paul to create. I choose the latter interpretation. You've chosen the former, and that's fine for you. I wish you didn't feel so strongly anti-Church because it seems rather misguided, but so be it.

[AlgyTaylor]

Are you a wizard? I'd love to know how people are able to know shit like "most religious people are very nice people" that they can declare it with such confidence.

Hehehe well, I'm not a wizard - but I've met numerous people of numerous different religious persuasions (off the top of my head - protestant, catholic, jehovah's witness, muslim, sikh, hindu, hippy spiritual stuff, pagans and buddhists) - and of the ones I've met, they've generally been pretty decent folk. Not all of them, but no more or less so than people who aren't religious.

Maybe I should've qualified the statement with "most religious people I've met" ...

I have not been betrayed or led astray by the Catholic Church. We can have this discussion about any and all institutions (which may be your point), but unless and until I've been betrayed by the Church, I remain unconvinced that atrocities that happend 500 years ago should bother me such that I abandon my religion.

TGD's right here, you can't go round saying the catholic church is bad now on the basis of you judging something that happened 500 years ago, and particularly not when you're judging it by modern standards. What was considered acceptable 500 years ago isn't now. in the same way that some things considered acceptable now, won't be in 500 years time.

[thegreekdog]

TGD's right here, you can't go round saying the catholic church is bad now on the basis of you judging something that happened 500 years ago, and particularly not when you're judging it by modern standards. What was considered acceptable 500 years ago isn't now. in the same way that some things considered acceptable now, won't be in 500 years time.

As a U.S. citizen I'm not proud of some of my country's history (or what we're doing now), but I'm not going to leave or renounce my citizenship.

[pimpdave]

TGD's right here, you can't go round saying the catholic church is bad now on the basis of you judging something that happened 500 years ago, and particularly not when you're judging it by modern standards. What was considered acceptable 500 years ago isn't now. in the same way that some things considered acceptable now, won't be in 500 years time.

Pretty sure Jesus saying "Love they neighbor" came before the Catholic church, and thus the time in which you're saying they're free from being judged for putting people in iron maidens and shoving huge pyramids up their anuses (among many, many others).

Also, the pederasty thing is plenty good reason to denounce the Catholic church at every available opportunity. Everyone tries to play it down, but it's dead serious and unbelievably widespread.

[BigBallinStalin]

TGD's right here, you can't go round saying the catholic church is bad now on the basis of you judging something that happened 500 years ago, and particularly not when you're judging it by modern standards. What was considered acceptable 500 years ago isn't now. in the same way that some things considered acceptable now, won't be in 500 years time.

As a U.S. citizen I'm not proud of some of my country's history (or what we're doing now), but I'm not going to leave or renounce my citizenship.

Of course not. You'd lose your rights and many other benefits which citizenship bestows. It's the same with being a Catholic and having privy to all those benefits from membership.

Membership and endorsement of an organization are two different actions. I think some people here are conflating those two actions as one. Of course, donating one's money to an organization is a clear sign of endorsement--assuming any amount of the money goes to the Catholic Church, and not just the local church.

For example, if someone is a US citizen, is it reasonable to hold that citizen accountable for the foreign policy of his country? I don't really know. It's difficult to calculate the culpability of a citizen's voting decisions--unless they voted for Ron Paul, then the answer is "no."

[pimpdave]

[2dimes]

Oh hai, I came here to be a dick and ask greekdog how he feels about the current things the Catholic Church is into but I see pimpdave has taken the lead. Carry on.

[thegreekdog]

Oh hai, I came here to be a dick and ask greekdog how he feels about the current things the Catholic Church is into but I see pimpdave has taken the lead. Carry on.

Meh... If I can ignore him, everyone else can.

[pimpdave]

I wasn't even responding to thegreekdog or asking him questions specifically, so...

[pimpdave]

Yeah, the best solution to pervasive child rape is to ignore it.

[thegreekdog]

TGD's right here, you can't go round saying the catholic church is bad now on the basis of you judging something that happened 500 years ago, and particularly not when you're judging it by modern standards. What was considered acceptable 500 years ago isn't now. in the same way that some things considered acceptable now, won't be in 500 years time.

Pretty sure Jesus saying "Love they neighbor" came before the Catholic church, and thus the time in which you're saying they're free from being judged for putting people in iron maidens and shoving huge pyramids up their anuses (among many, many others).

Also, the pederasty thing is plenty good reason to denounce the Catholic church at every available opportunity. Everyone tries to play it down, but it's dead serious and unbelievably widespread.

They aren't free from being judged. I'm not sure wehre you got that from anything AlgyTaylor (or I) posted.

EDIT - The problem here is that you (and honibaz) have assumed that it's a zero sum game. Either there is something wrong with the Catholic Church and you're out or there is nothing wrong with the Catholic Church and you're in. It is not a zero sum game.

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, the best solution to pervasive child rape is to ignore it.

I'm ignoring you (although I'm really not).

And your solution to the problem is that people should leave the Catholic Church. That seems like ignoring the problem to me. Or perhaps your solution is to criticize the Catholic Church from the outside, which has not been effective. My solution is to criticize the Catholic Church as a Catholic and that has become effective (at least in the United States).

[2dimes]

Well I think this is valid regardless of the organization in question.

My solution is to criticize the Catholic Church as a Catholic and that has become effective (at least in the United States).

So you automatically get a much higher score than 90% of the membership.

Ignoring dave might seem like a good plan and I wouldn't deny that many groups have issues with child preditors. However the Catholic Church certaily seems to be a leader in the field. Including many cases that are less than 500 years ago. Response?

[pimpdave]

Replace "seems to be" with "proven to be" and you'll be making an accurate statement. Read a newspaper, it's all over the place. They used to make the claim that child rape only happened in the US and then intimated that the boys were making it up. It's coming in from all over now, even Ireland.

There's a push going on now to force Vatican City to fall under the legal jurisdiction of Italy, so these child raping pieces of shit can't just go hide out there.

The biggest thing any Catholic can do is to immediately stop tithing. That money goes to fund their legal defense. You are literally funding the defense of child rapists if you give any money to any Catholic organization (because they shift funds around). We need to starve them out. They won't cooperate with the law, they won't hand over people THEY KNOW have been raping children for years. I mean serious rape, pushing their dicks in boys assholes rape. Jerry Sandusky kind of shit.

And people are offended that someone would dare mention it? Are you kidding me? The Catholic church should be derided constantly until they do something major to right this several decades long wrong (as far as what's able to be reported, we can't speak for the dead, but it's very reasonable to say we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and it's a gigantic tip).


Even worse, they demand laws be passed to fall in accordance with their doctrine, but won't obey the law when it comes to handing over their child raping priests. It's an evil institution. Until they open their books and their doors to let in investigators, the leadership is just as guilty as the people who do the actual raping.

[thegreekdog]

Well I think this is valid regardless of the organization in question.

My solution is to criticize the Catholic Church as a Catholic and that has become effective (at least in the United States).

So you automatically get a much higher score than 90% of the membership.

Ignoring dave might seem like a good plan and I wouldn't deny that many groups have issues with child preditors. However the Catholic Church certaily seems to be a leader in the field. Including many cases that are less than 500 years ago. Response?

I don't know the appropriate response you're looking for. I'm not sure where your statistic of 90% comes from because I don't know any Catholic that hasn't criticized the Church for its stance on this particular issue. And yes, it is a valid and important issue.

[thegreekdog]

Replace "seems to be" with "proven to be" and you'll be making an accurate statement. Read a newspaper, it's all over the place. They used to make the claim that child rape only happened in the US and then intimated that the boys were making it up. It's coming in from all over now, even Ireland.

There's a push going on now to force Vatican City to fall under the legal jurisdiction of Italy, so these child raping pieces of shit can't just go hide out there.

The biggest thing any Catholic can do is to immediately stop tithing. That money goes to fund their legal defense. You are literally funding the defense of child rapists if you give any money to any Catholic organization (because they shift funds around). We need to starve them out. They won't cooperate with the law, they won't hand over people THEY KNOW have been raping children for years. I mean serious rape, pushing their dicks in boys assholes rape. Jerry Sandusky kind of shit.

And people are offended that someone would dare mention it? Are you kidding me? The Catholic church should be derided constantly until they do something major to right this several decades long wrong (as far as what's able to be reported, we can't speak for the dead, but it's very reasonable to say we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and it's a gigantic tip).


Even worse, they demand laws be passed to fall in accordance with their doctrine, but won't obey the law when it comes to handing over their child raping priests. It's an evil institution. Until they open their books and their doors to let in investigators, the leadership is just as guilty as the people who do the actual raping.

I'm not offended that you mentioned it. Where did you get that idea? I'm not offended by anything you've typed at all. Or maybe you're talking about the general populace of Catholics or something, in which case I would urge you to figure out how you've decided that any Catholic is offended by mentioning child abuse by priests and trying to get the Church to solve the problem. Because I know zero Catholics who are offended by that and 100% of the Catholics I know are outspoken about the issue.

[2dimes]

certaily

I don't know the appropriate response you're looking for. I'm not sure where your statistic of 90% comes from because I don't know any Catholic that hasn't criticized the Church for its stance on this particular issue. And yes, it is a valid and important issue.

I made it up like 80% of all statistics. There is still some people very afraid to question church leaders, nevermind criticizing or challenging them. Also many that identify themselves as Catholic don't even attend.

For me it's kind of silly when people bring up the crusades and try to connect it to any group that is active today. It's someone trying to prove Jesus' teachings are not valuable because someone didn't follow them yet used the label Christian.

I know a guy that had a stomach problem from drinking 6 litres of Pepsi a day. I'm not going to say Pepsi is good for you but there is a fairly big difference in my opinion between having a Pepsi a couple of times a week and what he did. I blame him for drinking too much not the corperation for making too much.

Don't worry, I was not looking for a particular response. I just wanted to know your opinion and if you feel it's more relavant since it's more contemporary?

[thegreekdog]

certaily

I don't know the appropriate response you're looking for. I'm not sure where your statistic of 90% comes from because I don't know any Catholic that hasn't criticized the Church for its stance on this particular issue. And yes, it is a valid and important issue.

I made it up like 80% of all statistics. There is still some people very afraid to question church leaders, nevermind criticizing or challenging them. Also many that identify themselves as Catholic don't even attend.

For me it's kind of silly when people bring up the crusades and try to connect it to any group that is active today. It's someone trying to prove Jesus' teachings are not valuable because someone didn't follow them yet used the label Christian.

I know a guy that had a stomach problem from drinking 6 litres of Pepsi a day. I'm not going to say Pepsi is good for you but there is a fairly big difference in my opinion between having a Pepsi a couple of times a week and what he did. I blame him for drinking too much not the corperation for making too much.

Don't worry, I was not looking for a particular response. I just wanted to know your opinion and if you feel it's more relavant since it's more contemporary?

It's absolutely relevant and concerning, especially for Catholics. And it is more relevant in that it happened recently. I feel I can do more good (with respect to this particular issue) as a member of the Church than I could as an ex-Catholic.

[2dimes]

I want to agree with the concept that you will be able to do more as a member. My understanding of their operating principles are more, The clergy tells you what to do.

[thegreekdog]

I want to agree with the concept that you will be able to do more as a member. My understanding of their operating principles are more, The clergy tells you what to do.

Yeah, I think that's a lot of peoples' understanding, which is weird because I've never really seen that in action. I suppose in some communities people just do what the priests say. In the United States, we have more of a problem with authority (especially religious authority) than other cultures, so maybe it's different here. I went to one event (I think it was something like a pancake breakfast) where there were heated exchanges between parishoners and the monsingeur regarding the sexual abuse cases.

[2dimes]

I went to one event (I think it was something like a pancake breakfast) where there were heated exchanges between parishoners and the monsingeur regarding the sexual abuse cases.

Well, this may be telling about what a horrible person I am but.. That sounds kind of fun. Eat some pancakes and watch the yelling.

[thegreekdog]

I went to one event (I think it was something like a pancake breakfast) where there were heated exchanges between parishoners and the monsingeur regarding the sexual abuse cases.

Well, this may be telling about what a horrible person I am but.. That sounds kind of fun. Eat some pancakes and watch the yelling.

It was uncomfortable watching a grown man try to defend the Church's support of child abusing priests. And I don't remember the pancakes being very good. I'm no longer a member of that parish (just because I moved, not because of choice), but he wasn't one of the better priests.

[2dimes]

Thanks for answering my questions Greek. Have a great week!
I'm going to pretend those pancakes were really good, I'm on sort of a diet so that's probably a factor.
This has taken a turn to remind me of that Occupy thread. I wonder what happened with the Church of England guys that quit.