Benedict XVI

Remove all ads!

I prefer the term, 'realist'. Religion is all pish.

 

Well it keeps the masses under control more or less, so its probably a good thing from a biological point of view. I wonder if the other great apes have religion.

 

@Toughluck - I used Lenin's catchy phrase (Religion is the opium of the people) however I wouldn't describe myself as an orthadox marxist or even a leninist-marxist, no. However I think much of what he suggests is plausable.

@Barmy Army - I think alot of people would disagree with you that marxist and realist are in anyway interchangable.

@Anyone and everyone, a few things to think over.

1) Atheism is a big a leap in faith as being a devout member of any religion, perhaps even bigger.

2) Half the world is screwed anyway (either all muslims or all xtians are going to hell, never mind the bhuddists, hindus and jews (yes even "jedi's"))

3) Looking at it as a cynic, if I dont believe in god and there is one, I'm screwed, if I do believe in god and their isnt one it makes no diffrence. Ergo it makes sense to believe in god.

4) Looking at it as an optimist, if I don't believe in God and there is a god, he will understand my reasons for not beliving in him and thus forgive my misdomeaner.

 

1. Atheism is as irrational as faith is. Atheism is not about realistic approach to the supernatural, but is a blind, unproven, faith that God does not exist.

2. Look at your fourth point. If I don't worship God the way I'm supposed to, and if I don't believe in God that is the God, he will understand my reasons for believing something else, etc.

3. Ah, yes, the famous Pascal argument. If there is no God, you don't lose anything if you believe in him, and if you didn't believe, you took a risky gamble and won... what, anyway? And if there is a God, you win if you believed in him, and gosh, you're totally screwed if you didn't believe in him.

Yeah, I know my interpretation of 3) is absurd. And it's meant that way. What worth is faith that does not come from within and is not, in fact, real? Thinking that God might be fooled? What kind of God would he be then?

 

Toughluck: I don't agree at all with your comments.

"Luther should have changed the church." That's plain enough, but how should he have gone about doing that? An obscure monk in a provincial town in a region far from Rome. The suggestion seems absurd. Luther, nonetheless, did do just that, and the church, in either of the two trials which followed his posting of the theses, could have agreed with his complaints, or offered to compromise. Instead they condemned him, and left open to him only surrender, or the course he actually took. So much for working for change from within.

Your second point is a web of words with nebulous content. How can you say Copernicus was free to preach his theory anywhere he wished, when he didn't publish it until he was dying? Can you cite others who at that time preached similar beliefs without molestation or hindrance? Who were they? It's an assertion from your imagination. And please tell me where Copernicus refers to Prostestantism in "De Revolutionibus..." It's not there. Anywhere. Or was it guilt by association? (And incidentally, I find it curious that you seem to think it okay for the church to condemn and persecute these two great men for their alleged Protestant leanings, leanings I was unaware of before reading of them in your post, but no nay never for their scientific theories, although it was these theories, specifically, that the Church condemned. Perhaps there was a subtext that I missed.)

But let's get on to Galileo. Galileo, specifically, was condemned for publishing his treatise " A dialogue on the two great systems of the world, Ptolemaic and Copernican". Unfortunately for Galileo, he chose to have a character named Simplicio argue for the earth-centered Ptolemaic system, with arguments that reflected his name only too well. Still more unluckily, the current pope, Urban VIII, suspected that Simplicio was a caricature of himself, with tragic results for Galileo. So you were partially right Toughluck. It wasn't just the science; it was also the innuendo, but not of Protestantism.

And, finally, where in the Gospels does Jesus claim to be "the Son of the Living God"? Is it John, which the great 2nd century theologian Justin Martyr considered to be spurious?

[ April 28, 2005, 17:19: Message edited by: Cernak ]

 

Can we get back to topic? If all that is to be said about Benedict XVI has been said, let's move on. Make a new thread if you wish.

Personally, while I believe that we should learn from history, we must consider that 1. It is history; centuries ago at that. Let's not get so caught up in it, like those Christians who hate "kikes." 2. The farther you go down history, the murkier it gets. Things may really be far different as what has been recorded.

Again, let's move on.

 

Arguing about the church is on topic, more or less.

 

Seems like I have a lot of answering and commenting to do.

Once again my point is missed or then I'm just expressing my opinions badly. This analogy is false simply because there is nothing religious about gay lobbies they are political or atleast semipolitical organisations. There are political Church organisations too (such as the parties I mentioned earlier) which I consider to have the full right to promote a Christian agenda. However I do not think that these should have any formal ties to a religious order nor should they be openly representing one. Most importantly however I do not think it should in any way be illegal for Churches/religious organisations to interfere with politics I just don't think it's their place. I view religion as something beyoned politics and seeing it drag itself down to a political level simply causes it to loose credibility in my eyes.

The things is that murder does have significant harmful effects for the society. Homosexual civil union as an example does not have similar negative effects. And no I don't think the Church should interfere, that's why we have governments. The Church hardly passes judgement on people these days in the western world.

I don't think I'll have to teach you about how things such as rape, killing and stealing have been forbidden in many places before Christianity.
Adultery however is a good example for something that I don't feel should be illegal in any democracy and unless I'm badly mistaken I don't think it even is illegal anywhere in the western world.

The basic moral code is the same just about everywhere in the civilized world these days so it's just about details. I for one think that in the western world nothing which has significant harmful effects on the society should be illegal. I'm sure that you and many others disagree about it, but hey that's why this is all so much fun.

Does the Church say that? Do Catholics who do not believe/support some of the Church dogma loose their right to call themselves Catholics? Are they frequently excommunicated from the Church? Like the woman who yelled "I want a female pope", she is not a Catholic then? I bet she would disagree. The Church as an institution does not believe in anything, it's the people inside the organisation who believe and their belief has the power to create changes. So I still think you used the pronoun "We" incorrectly.

I say it. What authoroty do I have to say it? Perhaps none, but neither has the pope no claim to take responsibility over me so I guess we're both even in that.

I think I answered the point which causing the misunderstanding.

One things I'll have to give John Paul II credit for that he was tolerant towards other religions. This is mostly what I want, tolerance for other views and opinions (also within the church) in which I am worried that Razinger is going to take a huge leap backwards. Another thing is the political part I talked about earlier in my post, this goes for a lot of protestant branches too they are just much harder to influence by one man not to mention a lot smaller.

Never try to predict the future since you really can't be sure about it.

No I don't believe you should adjust your moral teachings to anything. I just don't think laws should be adjusted so that they fit to your teachings.

Are you claiming that I'm jealous? Quite a strange statement considering that the Christian right has been loosing elections in here three times in a row and really is not that significant in daily politics. Even inside EU the religious parties have been loosing for several years now. So I really don't know what I could be jealous of.

Banning religion is like stealing the people their right for belief. To me religion is all good as long as they stay as religions and do not become all political.

Aren't you one to eagerly judge people? You are of course aware that being a marxist requires a lot more than opposing religion?

EDIT: I did not have time to read through all the posts or points in all the posts but if I forgot to adress something important then please notify and I'll get back to it as soon as I can.

 

As Beren has already said...we have the makings for at least three new threads here...

1. The Church and societal morals
2. The teachings and dogma of the Catholic Church
3. The Church in history.

...excellent topics, but none have anything to do with the selection of Pope Benedict XVI.

Don't be afraid to start a new thread...if you build it, they will come...but let's direct this thread specifically back to the new Pope.

 

So the New Pope shouldn't be allowes to encourage the faithful to support candidates that uphold the standards of the Roman Catholic church? If a religeous leader can't speak as such, then niether should any activist or even politician! Freedom of speech is a double edged sword. If you support the rights of one group to speak freely, then you can't sensure another group...

 

He is and should be allowed to do that but he should choose not to. There is a difference, if you can't find it then I'm not sure how much better I can explain it.

 

Why should he "choose not to"??? I find this statement absurd. If he holds at least some power, you can't blame him for exercising it in what he deems is right. Maybe other activists, pro-choice or gay, for example, should choose to not encourage their supporters to uphold their standards??? What's the difference?

What makes the pope hold such a dear place in your heart? Maybe that he is bugging your conscience? I simply don't get it.

 

Because religious organisations should in my view stay religious and not become political. There are various political parties that support and talk for Christian/Muslim/Hindu values. The religion itself should stay clear of politics however and concentrate on taking care of their worshippers instead of dirtying their hands on politics.

Yes I can, and I will if I disagree with him. Hitler also exercised what he deemed to be right, so "doing what I think is right" is not allways enough.

The difference is that these are pure political organisations. Of course it could be a good thing for them too to abstain from this sort of encouragement, the more people think for themselves the better, but that's really not relevant for this topic.

What I don't get is why you are directly attacking me and not my arguments. I don't hate the Catholic Church and I don't hate the pope, I do however dislike some things about both of them and I do feel that neither is beyond criticism. If you are offended by my posts then I'm sorry and it was not my intention but I feel I have the right to express my opinion.

 

I have to agree with toughluck. Perhaps some of the religeous among us would prefer that certain lobby groups stay quiet, but they won't. They have their agenda to push. Likewise, the Pope (or most other religeous leaders for that matter) have a mandate that they believe is from God (an arguement for another topic), and despite what some people would wish, they MUST continue to preach to the faithful. It's not dirtying their hands, it's doing their job.

Actually, the term "Moral Entrepreneur" would apply to them. They are attempting to shape the world's moral outlook to look more favourably on those things they do that were once considered sins. Major Religeous leaders are trying to preserve that morality in their own flocks. To do this, they MUST encourage the faithful to support candidates that will uphold their moral values. Pope John Paul II was a tireless crusader trying to stem the tide of such moral change. The Catholics of the world could demand no less from Pope Benedict XVI.

 

I agree. They must continue preaching to their faithful and yes it is their job.Without that the pope and the priests would be useless. They just should not preach for their faithful to have their moral dogma enforced on others.

Some Catholics demand the same to continue. Perhaps even a majority, but definently not all of them. There are quite a few Catholics out there who want a more liberal line, there were even several cardinals who wanted a more liberal pope.

Does the Canadian law/constitution know the word "sin"? I most certainly know the Finnish law does not know that word, mainly because the separation of Church and State mostly applies on religious dogma and law. Unfortunately even in Finland there are still some religious points in the law, which I would see disappear in order to make the separation complete.

I am aware of that and I completely agree. If they only would stay in preserving that morality in their own flocks and not in others not part of that flock I would be very very happy.

EDIT: Deleted a sentence which I did not understand myself either.

[ May 02, 2005, 11:39: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

It is not only in their personal life, but the stance that the faithful take. This is not a cast of the Catholic church, or any other church, supporting a candidate, just a position on an issue.

And what does more liberal mean? Does that mean sit idly by as the influence of the church is diminished? Does this mean legitimizing things that were preached against by the previous pope? Change is a slippery slope, and I approve of the selection of a new pope so that he will continue to resist changing the core doctrine of the church.

The Law doesn't know the word sin, but the people who make the laws know about sin. The people Elect the people that make the law know about sin. In any democracy, the separation of church and state cannot be fully achieved. Last November that was demonstrated loud and clear...

They are not only there to preserve the faith unto their own flock, but to encourage others to come unto the faith. The faithful are taught God's laws not only that they may live righteously, but to invite all to live righteously. Those who vote based on such principles are deciding what kind of country they want. These leaders are encouraging them to choose a country where morality is preserved and encouraged, not disregarded to satisfy some other lobby group. These religeous leaders speak on issues to remind the elected officials of the desire of the people who support them.

 

[SNIP - Entire post dedicated to generalities, history and NOT THIS POPE deleted] - dmc

[ May 24, 2005, 16:25: Message edited by: dmc ]