question for catholics

[AgentDaleCooper]

seriously not trying to be offensive or take the piss or whatever here...


but do you really, seriously think the pope is somehow "holier" than anyone else, and that there is some devine weight attached to everything he says? if so, is it a problem when he says things you disagree with?

[Leicester Fan]

Why do people care?If people get joy or comfort from seeing the Pope then that's a good thing surely.

Live and let live ffs.

[stantonhibby]

Why do people care?If people get joy or comfort from seeing the Pope then that's a good thing surely.

Live and let live ffs.

:top marks

[Twa Cairpets]

Why do people care?If people get joy or comfort from seeing the Pope then that's a good thing surely.

Live and let live ffs.

Because its an interesting question, and its a section of an internet forum where people ask that type of question?

[Leicester Fan]

Because its an interesting question, and its a section of an internet forum where people ask that type of question?

It's not an interesting question, it's a rhetorical question. The OP isn't asking 'do you think the Pope etc' he's asking 'don't you realize you're being a ******?'

Religion in this country is not compulsory. I'm not the slightest bit religious myself. As I said earlier live and let live.

[Twa Cairpets]

It's not an interesting question, it's a rhetorical question. The OP isn't asking 'do you think the Pope etc' he's asking 'don't you realize you're being a ******?'

Religion in this country is not compulsory. I'm not the slightest bit religious myself. As I said earlier live and let live.

You're reading a different question to me then.
"but do you really, seriously think the pope is somehow "holier" than anyone else, and that there is some devine weight attached to everything he says? if so, is it a problem when he says things you disagree with?"

I have no idea if the OP has a hidden agenda to belittle beliefs, but if he did it would soon become obvious, wouldnt it?

Asking people if they believe that the Pope is the representative of Christ on Earth, and if so, what do they do when they disagree with one of his pronouncements is an interesting question on both intellectual and theological grounds.

If you dont want to be involved in discussing it then don't.

[Leicester Fan]

When somebody says;


do you really, seriously think

Do you really seriously think that's a genuine enquiry?

[Twa Cairpets]

When somebody says;

Do you really seriously think that's a genuine enquiry?

Treat it as one, then if the OP reacts to it with condecension then you're proved right and the question becomes moot.

Having said that, regardless of the motivation behind it, it is an interesting question is it not?

[hibsbollah]

I think it is an interesting question. His authority comes from the fact he is a 'direct line' from peter,or so I understand, and therefore has a direct link to the Almighty. But obviously popes are elected from amongst their peers,and historically have been from picked from all sorts of diverse backgrounds. There's been black African popes, popes who overthrew other popes, and then they reinvented the whole system when theymoved them to AVignon. The original link to divine Peter seems a bit weak, logically speaking. Would make more sense to have the papacy pass from father to son. Maybe most Catholics don't believe in his divinity at all,and just trust that he knows a lot about his subject?

[Riordans Boots]

seriously not trying to be offensive or take the piss or whatever here...



but do you really, seriously think the pope is somehow "holier" than anyone else, and that there is some devine weight attached to everything he says? if so, is it a problem when he says things you disagree with?


Like, why even bother :confused:

Everyone to their own and the likes :agree:

[Aubenas]

Serious answer, if that's what was wanted:

FWIW, it's the office not the man that counts, and he is, give or take the odd diversion, a la Avignon, in line from St Peter, the original Church leader, appointed by Christ.
The idea of 'infallibility' ie ' the Pope's always right' is less than 200 years old and only applies when he speaks 'ex cathedra', ie when he says 'What I'm gonna say now is infallible'. Not sure if he's ever done that in my lifetime (50+ years).

In other words, the idea that Catholics have to do what the Pope tells them is born out of ignorance of the Church's teaching, or sometimes prejudice (cos it makes us seem like wallies!). Like anyone else, we Papes have conscience and are well capable of understanding the teachings of Christ and making our own decisions. The Pope's a spiritual leader on earth, not a commanding officer.

But it is nice when folk ask for information rather than spouting out of ignorance of how the Church actually operates.
AS they say,though, why let the facts get in the way of a good story. I've no problem with folk who aren't religious - but I don't see why they need to attack the church all the time when I never feel the need to attack atheists!
Christ's message was live and let live - and Catholics are just as entitled to their beliefs as any other group.
Didn't mean to be all preachy - but hard to be anything else when going on about religion:greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

Serious answer, if that's what was wanted:

FWIW, it's the office not the man that counts, and he is, give or take the odd diversion, a la Avignon, in line from St Peter, the original Church leader, appointed by Christ.
The idea of 'infallibility' ie ' the Pope's always right' is less than 200 years old and only applies when he speaks 'ex cathedra', ie when he says 'What I'm gonna say now is infallible'. Not sure if he's ever done that in my lifetime (50+ years).

In other words, the idea that Catholics have to do what the Pope tells them is born out of ignorance of the Church's teaching, or sometimes prejudice (cos it makes us seem like wallies!). Like anyone else, we Papes have conscience and are well capable of understanding the teachings of Christ and making our own decisions. The Pope's a spiritual leader on earth, not a commanding officer.

But it is nice when folk ask for information rather than spouting out of ignorance of how the Church actually operates.
AS they say,though, why let the facts get in the way of a good story. I've no problem with folk who aren't religious - but I don't see why they need to attack the church all the time when I never feel the need to attack atheists!
Christ's message was live and let live - and Catholics are just as entitled to their beliefs as any other group.
Didn't mean to be all preachy - but hard to be anything else when going on about religion:greengrin

So neither the office or the person of the Pope is regarded as infallible unless specifically stated to be so. I wasn't aware of that - thanks for clearing it up. It makes sense I suppose when the different stances different Popes take on subjects are in contradiction - it wouldnt be possible for them both to be infallible.

At the risk of a slight thread hi-jack, on the other point you raise, mainstream religious bodies of all colours are now attacking atheism or "rampant secularism" fairly regularly. As an atheist, I dont mid because it brings the argument to the fore, but its interesting that a lack of belief is open game for spiritual leaders whereas competing religions are to be given respect by dint of the fact that they are faiths. Seems odd to me.

[Aubenas]

At the risk of a slight thread hi-jack, on the other point you raise, mainstream religious bodies of all colours are now attacking atheism or "rampant secularism" fairly regularly. As an atheist, I dont mid because it brings the argument to the fore, but its interesting that a lack of belief is open game for spiritual leaders whereas competing religions are to be given respect by dint of the fact that they are faiths. Seems odd to me.

Interesting point. I think the answer is that Faith systems tend to share many characteristics ( a bit like Hibees having more in common with Jambos than with folk who hate football) whereas the 'rampant secularism' referred to, I always take as meaning not atheism but the seemingly default position that people of faith shouldn't be respected, eg in law making or social arrangements , because it's all 'mumbo jumbo.'

I don't think I'd get away with attacking quantum physics and those who study it as being weirdos who talk nonsense, just because I don't have any understanding of it.

I think atheism and faith are just two different ways of trying to make sense of it all and I certainly wouldn't attack anyone for their faith or lack of it. I think many religionists just feel it's open house to attack religion these days, as a kind of proof of being cool and sophisticated, and I don't think anyone should be attacked for their philosophy if it stands for good.

To point to the Church's many faults as a justification for its moral bankruptcy is like condemning decorators because of Hitler's profession or politicians because of Jeffrey Archer. The Church has always been fallible - that's why the Reformation was needed, but at its best it's a force for good.

Good to exchange views though!

[Leicester Fan]

You definitely shouldn't diss the decorators.

[Aubenas]

You definitely shouldn't diss the decorators.

Agreed - they are nowhere near as bad as they are painted........:duck:

[Hibrandenburg]

So neither the office or the person of the Pope is regarded as infallible unless specifically stated to be so. I wasn't aware of that - thanks for clearing it up. It makes sense I suppose when the different stances different Popes take on subjects are in contradiction - it wouldnt be possible for them both to be infallible.

At the risk of a slight thread hi-jack, on the other point you raise, mainstream religious bodies of all colours are now attacking atheism or "rampant secularism" fairly regularly. As an atheist, I dont mid because it brings the argument to the fore, but its interesting that a lack of belief is open game for spiritual leaders whereas competing religions are to be given respect by dint of the fact that they are faiths. Seems odd to me.


That's what always winds me up. "Lets treat everyone as equals" Problem is that people who are religious are more equal than others.

Because I don't believe in god I have to keep my mouth shut because declaring my belief that there is no god will be deemed offensive by some, whilst at the same time it's ok for the religious to spread the word. Bit unfair surely?

[Brizo]

That's what always winds me up. "Lets treat everyone as equals" Problem is that people who are religious are more equal than others.

Because I don't believe in god I have to keep my mouth shut because declaring my belief that there is no god will be deemed offensive by some, whilst at the same time it's ok for the religious to spread the word. Bit unfair surely?

Id suggest the opposite is very much the case , at least on this mb :wink: I see few,if any, pro religion threads but a constant stream of threads initiated from an atheist perspective. On dotnet anyway it seems to me its very much the atheists who are spreading their word :greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

Id suggest the opposite is very much the case , at least on this mb :wink: I see few,if any, pro religion threads but a constant stream of threads initiated from an atheist perspective. On dotnet anyway it seems to me its very much the atheists who are spreading their word :greengrin

There arent many pro-religion threads because they havent been started.

The threads on religion have tended to be active because they contain generally well constructed arguments from disparate viewpoints. Disagreeing with your world view Brizo, and putting in a message board is not tantamount to proselytising for atheism.

[Brizo]

There arent many pro-religion threads because they havent been started.

The threads on religion have tended to be active because they contain generally well constructed arguments from disparate viewpoints. Disagreeing with your world view Brizo, and putting in a message board is not tantamount to proselytising for atheism.

I was responding directly to a post where the poster stated that atheists had to keep their mouths shut for fear of offending anyone while it was ok for religious people to spread the word. I made the point that that is very definately not the case on here. And if there are no pro religion threads all that tells me is that atheists have a far bigger issue with religion than the religious have with atheism. As a couple of previous posters have said live and let live.

Maybe you should reread the posts .... and if that sounds patronising I dont believe its anymore patronising than the final sentence of your post :wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

I was responding directly to a post where the poster stated that atheists had to keep their mouths shut for fear of offending anyone while it was ok for religious people to spread the word. I made the point that that is very definately not the case on here. And if there are no pro religion threads all that tells me is that atheists have a far bigger issue with religion than the religious have with atheism. As a couple of previous posters have said live and let live.

Maybe you should reread the posts .... and if that sounds patronising I dont believe its anymore patronising than the final sentence of your post :wink:

Certainly wasnt meant to be patronising, more conversational actually, but there you go.

Discussing an issue does not mean that you need to have a problem with it - it might of course, and there are certain areas of religion that I do have a serious problem with - but it is not a pre-requisite for having a discussion.

The point relating to tolerance of a viewpoint came initially from my thread hi-jack. It was interesting to learn that the Pope is not viewed as infallable unless he is specifically speaking "ex cathedra", which means his views on the dangers of rampant secularism and agressive atheism are therefore his views (and presumably the official line of the Catholic church), and not Gods.

My point was he considered it absolutely fine to warn people of what he saw as the inherent dangers of such a world view - i.e. mine. He has every right to proclaim his thoughts on this, and it doesnt offend or bother me in the slightest - it brings the discussion and debate to a wider audience, and lets people make up their own minds. Atheists, for the most part, have no interest whatsoever in converting people from their faith - why would they. There is no atheist church. There are no atheist rituals. There is no eternal reward for being an atheist, or for bringing people to accept the world from an atheist perspective.

If he had warned the world about the very real dangers of militant Islam, or the dangers of having Young-earth creationists in the senate in the US, or the dangers of extreme Zionists in the Knesset, there would have been outrage, effigies burned, fatwahs issued and all the rest.

The "live and let live" view is fine in basic principle. Using it at a catch-all to avoid discussing things that question the nature and structure of faith and the impact it has on individuals and society is a cop-out.

[AgentDaleCooper]

Why do people care?If people get joy or comfort from seeing the Pope then that's a good thing surely.

Live and let live ffs.

first off - it was a totally honest question, just one i have a hard time getting my head around (or did until aubenas' reply).

i agree with your live and let live sentiment absolutely, but as we all know, catholocism as an institution, particularly in britain, has been fairly controversial and as such worthy of discussion.

[The Harp Awakes]

seriously not trying to be offensive or take the piss or whatever here...


but do you really, seriously think the pope is somehow "holier" than anyone else, and that there is some devine weight attached to everything he says? if so, is it a problem when he says things you disagree with?

Have to say that some of the words you use in your post suggests that your question is 'loaded'; 'do you seriously think', etc. Anyway, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer your question as honestly as I can.

I think when a leader of any organisation speaks, whether it is a CEO of a business, a Prime Minister, a President, a monarch, etc, people tend to listen.

Are leaders always right in everything they say - no. Does every one of the 1.1 billion Catholics in the World believe everything the Pope says - no. Should all Catholics believe everything the Pope says - no.

For me you take the package, not every element of it. On the whole, I believe that most of what the Pope and the Catholic Church says is morally correct and that the World would be a better place if people followed his/their advice.

[greenlex]

I can't quote the post but how would that handing the papacy down from father to son thing work then

[Woody1985]

I can't quote the post but how would that handing the papacy down from father to son thing work then

They could have sex with women (not boys!).

What is with the celibacy rules anyway? Does it make them more pure not to have sec or something?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Interesting point. I think the answer is that Faith systems tend to share many characteristics ( a bit like Hibees having more in common with Jambos than with folk who hate football) whereas the 'rampant secularism' referred to, I always take as meaning not atheism but the seemingly default position that people of faith shouldn't be respected, eg in law making or social arrangements , because it's all 'mumbo jumbo.'

I don't think I'd get away with attacking quantum physics and those who study it as being weirdos who talk nonsense, just because I don't have any understanding of it.

I think atheism and faith are just two different ways of trying to make sense of it all and I certainly wouldn't attack anyone for their faith or lack of it. I think many religionists just feel it's open house to attack religion these days, as a kind of proof of being cool and sophisticated, and I don't think anyone should be attacked for their philosophy if it stands for good.

To point to the Church's many faults as a justification for its moral bankruptcy is like condemning decorators because of Hitler's profession or politicians because of Jeffrey Archer. The Church has always been fallible - that's why the Reformation was needed, but at its best it's a force for good.

Good to exchange views though!

I think the problem however is that in the past, not recent past admittedly, the church has had too much of a say in things like law making and I think we need to be careful to find a happy medium. Personally I don't think any faiths or beliefs should have input in such things unless it directly affects there followers, i.e. wearing burkhas in public for example, muslims should definitely get a voice in that one.

As the saying goes, power corrupts and even religious groups have proven that in the past, sadly. Not quite sure how you strike the happy medium by the way, but then I'm never very good with solutions, just finding problems:greengrin

[hibsbollah]

I can't quote the post but how would that handing the papacy down from father to son thing work then

I was hoping someone would pick me upon that! it was just an illustration of how it's difficult to ensure divinity through the generations

[Brizo]

Have to say that some of the words you use in your post suggests that your question is 'loaded'; 'do you seriously think', etc. Anyway, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer your question as honestly as I can.

I think when a leader of any organisation speaks, whether it is a CEO of a business, a Prime Minister, a President, a monarch, etc, people tend to listen.

Are leaders always right in everything they say - no. Does every one of the 1.1 billion Catholics in the World believe everything the Pope says - no. Should all Catholics believe everything the Pope says - no.
For me you take the package, not every element of it. On the whole, I believe that most of what the Pope and the Catholic Church says is morally correct and that the World would be a better place if people followed his/their advice.

:agree: Im one of the pik and mix variety of Catholics. And certainly in the UK id suggest thats the overwhelming standpoint. I take the bits I find help me get through life and tbh discard the bits I dont agree with. And im totally comfortable with that. I see it as no different from a political leader where I will agree overall with his parties ethos but be totally opposed to certain policies and behaviour.

The topic of Papal infallibility doesnt interest me at all in my day to day life. But religious faith has helped me get through my day to day life. And if it helps other people and theyre not harming anyone , wheres the problem.

[Twa Cairpets]

[/B]

:agree: Im one of the pik and mix variety of Catholics. And certainly in the UK id suggest thats the overwhelming standpoint. I take the bits I find help me get through life and tbh discard the bits I dont agree with. And im totally comfortable with that. I see it as no different from a political leader where I will agree overall with his parties ethos but be totally opposed to certain policies and behaviour.

The topic of Papal infallibility doesnt interest me at all in my day to day life. But religious faith has helped me get through my day to day life. And if it helps other people and theyre not harming anyone , wheres the problem.

Out of curiosity, given that you apply your own value judgements on the tenets of catholicism, why do you consider yourself a catholic rather than simply a christian (if indeed you do)?

[Hibrandenburg]

That's what always winds me up. "Lets treat everyone as equals" Problem is that people who are religious are more equal than others.

Because I don't believe in god I have to keep my mouth shut because declaring my belief that there is no god will be deemed offensive by some, whilst at the same time it's ok for the religious to spread the word. Bit unfair surely?

Id suggest the opposite is very much the case , at least on this mb :wink: I see few,if any, pro religion threads but a constant stream of threads initiated from an atheist perspective. On dotnet anyway it seems to me its very much the atheists who are spreading their word :greengrin

Two very different worlds the real world and this virtual one. I'm sure if I went outside my front door with a banner stating my non belief that it wouldn't take long until I got some grief from one type of believer or the other.

[Scouse Hibee]

seriously not trying to be offensive or take the piss or whatever here...


but do you really, seriously think the pope is somehow "holier" than anyone else, and that there is some devine weight attached to everything he says? if so, is it a problem when he says things you disagree with?

"Question for Catholics", reminds me of when I first came to Scotland and was asked about my religion in relation to football and Liverpool & Everton. The first time ever at the age of 23 had I been asked to link my religion to the team I supported!

[SlickShoes]

"Question for Catholics", reminds me of when I first came to Scotland and was asked about my religion in relation to football and Liverpool & Everton. The first time ever at the age of 23 had I been asked to link my religion to the team I supported!

Happened to me when i moved to Glasgow.

Hibs are seen a bit as Celtc Lite so i must be a catholic.........

I dont believe in any religion a lot of people here find that hard to grasp, as well as a general dislike of the royal family so i manage to upset both groups of supporters here, its great!

[Leicester Fan]

[QUOTE=Brizo;2581546]

Two very different worlds the real world and this virtual one. I'm sure if I went outside my front door with a banner stating my non belief that it wouldn't take long until I got some grief from one type of believer or the other.

I don't know what it's like in Berlin but you certainly wouldn't get any grief in England, quite the reverse, if you went outside with a banner praising Christianity you'd either branded a racist or a weirdo , probably both.

That's what annoys me about these debates, the atheists go on as if there are groups of menacing priests going around making people pray at gunpoint.

PS. I don't believe in God either, I just don't make a big deal about it.

[Twa Cairpets]

[QUOTE=Hiberlin;2582641]

I don't know what it's like in Berlin but you certainly wouldn't get any grief in England, quite the reverse, if you went outside with a banner praising Christianity you'd either branded a racist or a weirdo , probably both.

That's what annoys me about these debates, the atheists go on as if there are groups of menacing priests going around making people pray at gunpoint.

PS. I don't believe in God either, I just don't make a big deal about it.

Rubbish.
a) Anyone literally going outside with a banner proclaiming their belief or lack thereof will get a reaction, clearly. Thats why people dont do it. Millions of peple go out every day proclaiming faith by wearing a cross, skull cap or hijab and are not branded, as you put it, "a racist or weirdo".

b) If the debates irritate you, ignore them or put forward a point other than "Im annoyed and this is pointless". You lumping together of atheists as a homogenous mass of militant god-bashers is as lazy as the argument you make.

Religion, its influence (both positive and negative) on personal life, society and global politics and economics is a topic of massive importance and relevance to billions - you included - whether you like it or not.

[tony higgins]

[QUOTE=Hiberlin;2582641]the atheists go on as if there are groups of menacing priests going around making people pray at gunpoint.

More,s the pity.

:chop:

[Hibrandenburg]

[QUOTE=Hiberlin;2582641]

I don't know what it's like in Berlin but you certainly wouldn't get any grief in England, quite the reverse, if you went outside with a banner praising Christianity you'd either branded a racist or a weirdo , probably both.

That's what annoys me about these debates, the atheists go on as if there are groups of menacing priests going around making people pray at gunpoint.

PS. I don't believe in God either, I just don't make a big deal about it.


[QUOTE=Leicester Fan;2583002]

Rubbish.
a) Anyone literally going outside with a banner proclaiming their belief or lack thereof will get a reaction, clearly. Thats why people dont do it. Millions of peple go out every day proclaiming faith by wearing a cross, skull cap or hijab and are not branded, as you put it, "a racist or weirdo".

b) If the debates irritate you, ignore them or put forward a point other than "Im annoyed and this is pointless". You lumping together of atheists as a homogenous mass of militant god-bashers is as lazy as the argument you make.

Religion, its influence (both positive and negative) on personal life, society and global politics and economics is a topic of massive importance and relevance to billions - you included - whether you like it or not.


[QUOTE=Leicester Fan;2583002]

More,s the pity.

:chop:

Think god must be messing around with the quotes on here. :greengrin

Think we atheists should invent a symbol that we can wear around our necks declaring our non belief status. Maybe an "0" to say "No god".

[Hibby70]

hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side. Jedi pr***s.

[SRHibs]

‎You don't have to be good at anagrams to see that Pope Benedict is an 'Epic Bent Pedo'.

[ancienthibby]

‎You don't have to be good at anagrams to see that Pope Benedict is an 'Epic Bent Pedo'.

That is just completely sick!!:grr:

[SRHibs]

Ahh, calm yourself. It's just a joke.

EDIT: Post 1'666'. Very fitting.

[bighairyfaeleith]

That is just completely sick!!:grr:

what the pope?:greengrin