To hell with religion!

[Tyler9000]

That is the problem with blind faith. Blindly trusting beleivers can, with the right impetus, be made to believe--and do--anything. That is what makes religion so dangerous, IMO.

To be fair, one should acknowledge that this applies equally in the non-religious world. Secular politicians make hay with this phenomenon every day. Faith, with all the promise and pitfalls it implies, extends far further than a belief in a creator. I personally think scapegoating religion is a common intellectual trap that insulates people from their own secular biases which often follow the same patterns.

[RealPerson]

Indeed. Political disagreements can be as irrational, ferocious and violent as the religious ones.

[Devil's Advocate]

Tyler & RP : I agree. As how could I not, with the evidence of the evils of Nazism, Communism and Fascism in open display?

But I say Religion is #1 (by far) among things that drive people crazy. WHEN ADJUSTED FOR TECHNOLOGY, you'll find that religion is responsible for an overwhelming majority of butchery and misery in the world.

That is why I think it's dangerous. The fact that there are other tocxic things does not take away from the toxicity of religion.

[Dragline]

To be clear, I'm Christian but not Catholic. However, I do greatly respect the Pope.

From my (admittedly incomplete) perspective, much news coverage on Pope Francis today is slanted by non-religious reporters who read what they want to see politically into his doctrine rather than comprehending what he intends when you dig deeper. I see the Catholic church as not shifting away from the Gospel at all, but simply being less judgmental than they have in the past in the process of reaching out to nonbelievers. Yes, it's pragmatic. But no, it is not abandoning the faith. Like discussing ERE with newcomers by stressing the benefits of freedom rather than jumping straight into "extreme" budgeting, Pope Francis is simply smart about outreach.

That said, I'll leave it to those more educated about the Catholic church to fill in the gaps. I don't want to misrepresent anything.

I do think that beyond Catholicism the secularization of some churches has gone a bit far for my tastes. But if different styles reaches people and brings them to faith in different ways, who am I to judge?

Hah -- you appear to be channeling PF with that last Q.

I'm no expert in the RCC's liturgical machinations either (DW still claims I'm a heathen), but it seems like what is going on is a more complete implementation of the Vatican II reforms of the 1960s, which require, among other things, a healthy respect for other believers and non-believers, and were a huge change from the way things were before. There was a huge backlash against Vatican II that ran its course over the past 25 years but now appears to be dying with its proponents.

The word you hear being used more and more is "pastoral", which evokes the idea of finding the lost sheep and caring for them in whatever state you happen to find them, and was pretty much what PF was doing in the Argentine slums for most of his career. Mercy is a big theme too. I think you are correct that the main dogma is unlikely to change, but i could be wrong.

If you are interested in following what is happening from someone who knows what he is talking about and does not jump to conclusions like most media, follow Father James Martin on Twitter and/or FB. He's also quite funny.

[Devil's Advocate]

Ok, questions for fans of this new self/oeffacing, tolerant Pope. Will apply to all religious leaders, but let's talk of Papa Francis.

Look, either Jesus lives and Jesus saves, and Pope Francis has a hotline to him. Or not. Either the one or the other. Agreed?

So, RC believers : if the Pope speaks God's words, does it matter what he says? Why is it goo! If he suddenly hould say, abortion is ok? It's all what God wants. If God wants first-borns to be decaoitated, and if he channels God and says that, and you believe in God as channeled by the Ppope, why would you prefer a more tolerant Pope? What you want is God's decree, whatever that be, right?

And if that's not so ... Then the man is a hot air merchant. A BSer supreme. What price his tolerance then?

So, either way ... Why is his tolerance and mild persona such a big deal ?

[7Wannabe5]

Devil's Advocate said: But I say Religion is #1 (by far) among things that drive people crazy. WHEN ADJUSTED FOR TECHNOLOGY, you'll find that religion is responsible for an overwhelming majority of butchery and misery in the world.

I think "testosterone" should be substituted for "religion." No other species have organized religions but many of them engage in combat. Sex and aggression are just wired too damn close near our crocodile brain parts. I'm not the least bit afraid of the possibility of encountering Mother Teresa in an alley. Also, much easier to fix with current drugs/technology than rooting out the drive towards spirituality.

[jennypenny]

According to what I taught in RCIA, the Pope is not God. He is anointed by God to lead the Church, but anointed does not mean he is without sin.

Don't fret DA, some hard-core Catholics believe that Pope Frances is the last Pope. If they're right, you won't have to suffer through any more.

[Dragline]

Ok, questions for fans of this new self/oeffacing, tolerant Pope. Will apply to all religious leaders, but let's talk of Papa Francis.

Look, either Jesus lives and Jesus saves, and Pope Francis has a hotline to him. Or not. Either the one or the other. Agreed?

So, RC believers : if the Pope speaks God's words, does it matter what he says? Why is it goo! If he suddenly hould say, abortion is ok? It's all what God wants. If God wants first-borns to be decaoitated, and if he channels God and says that, and you believe in God as channeled by the Ppope, why would you prefer a more tolerant Pope? What you want is God's decree, whatever that be, right?

And if that's not so ... Then the man is a hot air merchant. A BSer supreme. What price his tolerance then?

So, either way ... Why is his tolerance and mild persona such a big deal ?

No to paragraphs one, two and three. But you are really just trolling now and attempting to goad reactions. If you are really interested in the ins and outs of Catholicism, there are many places to learn about it that you may find with your favorite search engine. Bear in mind that most American Catholics disagree with one or more of the tenets, or just don't care about some of them. But I feel like you are not interested in anything that does not support your original thesis and you are quite strident about it. So its better to leave you with it.

Making a bunch of unsupported statements (e.g., the last really goofy one was about religion being the most dangerous thing if you adjust for technology -- that induced an lol moment) and then expecting us to scurry around refuting them is really not worth our time, especially when you are not listening.

If it worth your time, please support your theses with something beyond your own ipse dixit (it is because I say it is -- "now prove me wrong" -- "now, see, what you said didn't satisfy me so you are wrong and I win" -- "so now, let me repeat my ipse dixit and demand more evidence from you"). C'mon, man -- we've all seen this tactic before and its really over-played.

[Devil's Advocate]

7W5 : "Rooting out" superstition and religion, is wholly different than rooting out man's drive toward spirituality. If anything, religion itself stifles spirituality. Religion itself does the best job of rooting out spirituality. Witness the Church's treatment of Meister Eckhart, to take one example, and mainstream Islam's demonisation of Sufi mystics, to take another.

.

Jenny, ya I'd heard that too. Look, I'm not picking on RC (although I do have a comprehensive background myself in RC tradition--with hyper-rigid Jesuit faith, to be precise, which imcidentally the current Pope shares, the Jesuit background I mean) but use it only as example.

My point was, if some religious leader is really "infallible", then no belie er should choose one pronouncement over another, since all these are God's words. . So why would a believer choose a tolerant Pope over an intolerant one? Infallibility does go the Christ's pastor, remember.

Indeed, even if some religious leader ordered killing people by decapitating them, then believers should welcome even that, no, if they are true believers? And that has indeed happened, not long back!

Do you see why I say religion is dangerous? And also why the Pope's "tolerance" doesn't impress me? And oughtn't, logically, impress believers either?

[Dragline]

I don't think anything productive generally comes out of religious debates.

As regards rationality and how that applies here, one of us is making a mistake. I don't mean that as a mild put-down, one of us is literally getting our Logic 101 wrong. I've never formally studied logic, but I'm inclined to think the one in error isn't me. But we'll see.

You are making the mistake or are confused, or are trying to change horses in midstream. The way you used "rational" in the OP was as in a belief arrived at by reasoning, which is generally held as opposite of what is called "faith" (religious belief), which is not arrived at that way.

Later, when I pointed out that subjective personal preferences are not arrived at by reason -- they simply are what they are --, you attempted to redefine "rational" as having the definition of "rational behavior" -- i.e., it makes me feel good. See http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav. ... l+behavior for that definition.

By the second definition, all personal preferences, including irrational beliefs in religion, are "rational behavior", because they make the holder feel better off. They need not be arrived at by reasoning -- logical, scientific or otherwise.

Thus, by your amended definition, your original thesis that religion is irrational must be incorrect.

[Devil's Advocate]

Dragline, I was trying to have a real conversation, a real discussion. I generally don't care two hoots what the other person thinks. But this place is one of few places where one looks at for intelligent discussion.

That's what I was trying to do here, with you perhaps more than with anyone else. Go check my last few posts, made here today.

I'm not overly thrilled when honest-to-goodness disussuion is put down as trolling. I don't get off on that kind of thing. If on re-reading my posts here you still think that, feel free not to take the bait (if bait you still think it is). And if perchance others share your view of what I'm doing here, I'll gladly desist myself.

[Devil's Advocate]

Dragline : Ah, the rationality argument. We'll do it rigorously later, but let me present an analogy if I may :

I find from experience and introspection that careerism and consumerism leave me cold. So to maximise my fulfilment, I abandon these for an EREish lifestyle. That's rational.

Now another man may well, similarly, find consumerism and careerism rational too. But usually the careerist/consumerist is stuck to his lifestyle in spite of his inner drive. That makes it irrational.

Now if I opted for an ERE life bascause I believe some deity desired me to stop workimng amd live an austere-ish life, that would NOT be rational. Nor would the other man's thinking it his God-given duty to work and consume.

Now extrapolate to religion.

That, in short, was my argument, in short. Makes sense?

If you still don't agree, I'll see if I can't present my position using more direct terms rather than an analogy. But later.

[Spartan_Warrior]

7W5 : "Rooting out" superstition and religion, is wholly different than rooting out man's drive toward spirituality. If anything, religion itself stifles spirituality. Religion itself does the best job of rooting out spirituality. Witness the Church's treatment of Meister Eckhart, to take one example, and mainstream Islam's demonisation of Sufi mystics, to take another.

.

Jenny, ya I'd heard that too. Look, I'm not picking on RC (although I do have a comprehensive background myself in RC tradition--with hyper-rigid Jesuit faith, to be precise, which imcidentally the current Pope shares, the Jesuit background I mean) but use it only as example.

My point was, if some religious leader is really "infallible", then no belie er should choose one pronouncement over another, since all these are God's words. . So why would a believer choose a tolerant Pope over an intolerant one? Infallibility does go the Christ's pastor, remember.

Indeed, even if some religious leader ordered killing people by decapitating them, then believers should welcome even that, no, if they are true believers? And that has indeed happened, not long back!

Do you see why I say religion is dangerous? And also why the Pope's "tolerance" doesn't impress me? And oughtn't, logically, impress believers either?

I think you're working from a false premise. Papal infallibility is a doctrine that applies to very narrow, official decrees only, usually reserved for cannonizing articles of faith, etc. I don't know if any recent popes have even invoked papal infallibility. It's an exaggeration to suggest that every word out of the Pope is believed to be equivalent to God's word. At least, that's my understanding as someone completely outside the faith.

That said, I do understand the point you're making with regard to contradictory infallible decrees. Again, though, because of the (for lack of better terms) official and bureaucratized nature of "infallible decrees", I don't know that this has ever happened historically (e.g. one pope infallibly decreeing that killing nonbelievers is good and another infallibly decreeing that it isn't). In particular, I don't know if the concept of infallible decree was involved in the Crusades or anything else involving decapitating non-believers.

For the record, while I wouldn't call your arguments (ahem) infallible nor your presentation particularly persuasive, I don't think you're trolling. It does feel like an all-too familiar conversation, though.

[jennypenny]

My point was, if some religious leader is really "infallible", then no belie er should choose one pronouncement over another, since all these are God's words. So why would a believer choose a tolerant Pope over an intolerant one? Infallibility does go the Christ's pastor, remember.

Indeed, even if some religious leader ordered killing people by decapitating them, then believers should welcome even that, no, if they are true believers? And that has indeed happened, not long back!

Do you see why I say religion is dangerous? And also why the Pope's "tolerance" doesn't impress me? And oughtn't, logically, impress believers either?

First, they aren't "God's words" which I tried to explain in my last post. Second, being a 'true believer' doesn't mean we are supposed to follow any Pope's words blindly. Your impression that Catholicism functions like a game of Simon Sez is not accurate.

We (Catholics) aren't 'choosing' one Pope over another or following them differently. Popes are human beings with different personalities, agendas, and messages, just like other leaders. I think people are fond of Pope Frances because he chooses to focus on compassion over condemnation. His inclusive tone better reflects the feelings of modern Catholics. That does not mean that Church law has changed in any way.

[Devil's Advocate]

S_W : I meant the fellow in black, not the fellows in chain mail. After all he's a believer too, and presumably his Mullah tells him to do that.

Jennny, you're right, I was technically not right. Infallibility refers to something specific, as both you and S-W have pointed out.

I was speaking generally : if this Pope's views, and eventually the Church's views, veered to greater tolerance as regards homosexuality, or contraception, or abortion, or evolution, what then? There the general point is to arrive at what God decrees/reveals, right, via the Pope and Church? Just like it doesn't make sense to prefer a rigorous scientific assessment of racial equality (since it is what it is, our wishes are irrelevant), shouldn't the believer have a similar attitude to God's Will as erepresented by Church/Pope?

In which case, (a) what's the big deal with this Pope's gentler mien? God's Will is what it is.
And (b) can you really, if you bought this line (the line on abortion should be as decreed by church -- that line), then really blame the ghoul in black with the accent, if he was merely following his Mullah's decree?
-----
Ok, this is getting heated-ish and personal-ish. And I sense I'm not being overly coherent. I also sense this is not at all pleasant for jenny, and perhaps other believers. And all to no purpose really, if we don't take this discussion impersonally, as we discuss so many things in these forums (intelligently or ottherwise).

I think I ought to step back for a space. Come back later, if people still want to talk about this.

Plus I'm travelling, and chating online about religion may perhaps not be the best thing to sppend time doing when you 're traveling.

later, then, if this topic still draws people when i get back ...

[Ego]

His inclusive tone better reflects the feelings of modern Catholics. That does not mean that Church law has changed in any way.

Not yet. He's been there 18 months. Give him time.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... hurch.html

Last week he carried out a wedding for 20 couples in Rome. Among them was one couple who were living together and already had children and a man who had been married before and been granted an annulment. It sent out a signal without changing any doctrines.

Bishops from around the world have been summoned to Rome next month for the first of two extraordinary synods to discuss the Church's approach to family life.

Last year Francis prepared the ground by issuing a worldwide survey of Catholics asking for their views on matters such as single parent families, contraception and gay marriage.

It had fuelled speculation that Francis wants to end the ban on divorcees who remarry receiving Holy Communion.

That has already prompted traditionalist Cardinals to issue a public warning against any change to the Church's 2,000-year teaching that marriage is for life. Whatever is decided is likely to define Francis's papacy although no changes are expected to be made this year – any conclusions are expected to follow the second special synod next year.

[Spartan_Warrior]

S_W : I meant the fellow in black, not the fellows in chain mail. After all he's a believer too, and presumably his Mullah tells him to do that.

Sorry. It seemed like you were talking about Roman Catholicism. I don't think there's much difference ultimately. I know even less about Islam than I do Christianity/Catholicism, but I doubt that the terrorists going around beheading people are doing so with the permission of actual Islamic religious leaders. Rather, I suspect they are simply psychopaths and criminals using religion to justify their psychoses.

Interesting article touching on a lot of points in this thread (particularly with regard to a disguised form of nationalism/political ideology as the root of much religious extremism):

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/200 ... land.july7

Also, it's not just religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_true_believer

[Ego]

@Ego--The rumor is that the Pope plans to announce some changes when he visits Philly next year. Wanna come with me? I can get you a ticket.

Seriously? He's coming to Philly? It would be tempting to cut our trip short just to come back and gloat to my old neighbors, the only non-Catholic on the block who got to see the pope. Hah!

[jennypenny]

@Ego--The rumor is that the Pope plans to announce some changes when he visits Philly next year. Wanna come with me? I can get you a ticket.

Seriously? He's coming to Philly? It would be tempting to cut our trip short just to come back and gloat to my old neighbors, the only non-Catholic on the block who got to see the pope. Hah!

Yup, he's coming and I'll be there for some of the events. I'd love to take you to see if we could finally settle this. We could see who burst into flames when he entered the room.

It's probably even money which one of us it would be.

[Ego]

We could see who burst into flames when he entered the room.

It's probably even money which one of us it would be.

Nah, he's all about mercy. With my luck I'd get chosen as the poor sinner whose feet he washes and kisses. And then what? My atheist cred would be ruined.