Catholic meltdown

Sorta goes back to my point that a lot of the issues with religion has to do with the human-created rules and regulations and not the source teachings of Jesus, the Bible, Mohammed, Buddha, or anyone else.

 

This always gets me...

The bible along with the other holy books are all human created. The 'source' teachings of "Jesus, the Bible, Mohammed, Buddha" are from (or are) those very books.

I've never understood people's insistence on ignoring the fact that ALL of the 'holy' books, have been re-written 1000 times while claiming they are somehow the 'word' of their god.

To me, I don't have to look beyond the fact that there are so many different versions of each of these types of books to know that they are all about whichever 'masters' are currently trying to run things.

Seriously now... back up and think about this.... if you were the 'god'... and you had created all of this, being the all-knowing being that you are, why in the fuck would you ADD to the confusion we humans can create on our own?

There are two choices as I see it... either;

1) There is no god or 'supreme being'
or
2) The one (or ones) that exist are not good and shiny beings, they are sick evil twisted bastards who enjoy watching suffering.

Take your pick, I will stick to my path of doing what I feel is right, without looking for an outside force to either blame for my failures or credit my successes...

 

I don't think you can legitimately apply this to Buddhism or Taoism. They don't have 'gods' in the conventional sense of the word. What they have written down is more for pragmatic, practical use. The author of a book is relatively unimportant compared to its content, especially from the Zen Buddhist or Taoist perspective. You read it and apply whatever you find to be true and useful. This seems very foreign to those more familiar with Western religions, especially Christianity and Islam.

or
3) The ones that exist have little interest in us, and no interest at all in speaking to us or answering our questions.

 

I should be more careful... I should stick to my normal "organized religion" category... lol

I consider that to include any religion that has an organizational structure that intercedes between the participant and the 'higher power' and transfers responsibility in either direction.

Yeah, I can go for having that as an option.

My point was just that wether they exist or not, they are not taking an active part in our lives.

The acts of good that are done 'in their name' are done by people, making choices to do what is good.

Just as the acts of evil that are done in their name are also done by people making choices.

We had some religious guy wander by here last week (no clue which one lol). He drove in and came out with pamplet in hand and started off on some speil...

I was in a pleasant mood, the sun was shining, I was sitting on the step enjoying the fresh air... so I smiled and said, Thanks, but I'm not interested.

He said something like, no need to thank me, it's the lords commandments (or some such thing) and got back in his car and left.

I sat there thinking about this for a bit....

He came to 'save my soul'...

not because he thought it was worth saving...
not because he thought we were in trouble and needed guidance...
not because he felt everyone should have the chance to be 'saved'...

He came, because his 'god' told him he should...

Now, if he had been sitting at home and all of a sudden with a poof of smoke (most likely smelling of pot), GOD appeared, and said to him... "Go save Tom"... I could understand him jumping in his car and coming over... Hell, that would convince me to go talk to Tom and I think Tom is an asshole... lol

Barring that scenario though, what he actually meant was that a book, written by humans, re-written time and time again, said as part of his getting into heaven, one of the costs was he had to debase himself and come talk to the heathen unbelievers such as myself and offer them a chance to follow...

That isn't an act of good... that is an act of pure 100% selfishness...

It also wasn't an act of god, it was a choice made by that person.


uhm... so what in the hell was the original question anyways??? lol

 

LOL, I always get a kick out of these on-line exchanges because everyone is a faceless being with no personality and no body language. I've read that ~50% of communication is non-verbal. These time-delayed, written communications between anonymous individuals leaves a little to be desired. Oh well, that’s a separate issue unless we’re willing to have a convention or a mass audio/visual conference call!

I don't believe in transferring power between God and humans - that's part of my issue. I believe in the Christian God, but I don't expect everyone else to follow my beliefs. Rather, I believe that everyone can have his/her own beliefs and still be a good person worthy of salvation. The various forms in which God has presented himself/herself (Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, a tree if you’re a druid) is just His/Her way of making himself/herself known to those of a particular region or value set. Just because my vision of God differs from someone else’s doesn't make one side right and the other wrong, rather they're just different. The fundamental teachings of all religions are pretty much consistent – it’s the human control freaks that make the differences something to fight about.

What burns me is humans putting their own spin on God's word. It could be Buddha's word, Mohammed's word, Confucius' word, whoever. I believe God can/could send prophets – we may differ in our beliefs in that respect.

For the pastor of the Sacred Heart Church in Boulder or the Archbishop of Denver to say a child shouldn’t be allowed to re-enroll in school because his parents are lesbians burns me beyond all belief. At that point it’s no longer God’s will at work; rather, it’s the human opinion of a calloused, asexual being with a life of sexual frustration making a cruel judgment and hiding behind the robes of his religion. Further, it burns my ass that there are a lot of “christians” (not capitalized on purpose), who think that just because someone with a religious title makes the declaration it must be true. Isn’t there a line in the Bible stating that “he without sin should cast the first stone”?? In many ways I feel these religious hypcrits are actually the “evil force” at work in humanity. Elsewhere in the forums I cited a quote from Elton John who said that religion has caused a lot more problems than it ever solved. When I first read that quote I was horrified, but the more I read about Crusades, Jihads, arrogant assholes denying children an education, the more I realize he was spot-on in his statement. Anyone who’s ever critically read any religious teachings knows that a true religious being would never invoke their hateful ways on humanity – especially a child.

When I was in Catholic schools we were never encouraged to read the Bible. Why? The reason given was that we were not capable of interpreting God’s words – an “educated” priest had to do that for us. Now I realize that was just the Catholic spin to say that “we want you to believe our human spin on Biblical teachings because if you knew what God really meant you’d realize we’re control freak assholes.”

 

In addition, he is probably in some kind of a Sunday school class or Bible study group at church that pressures its members to 'witness' and report back to them about successful conversions. There is social pressure to do your share of the work and compete with your peers. I grew up going to a church where this was routinely done. They tried to make me feel lazy, ungrateful to God, and unconcerned about others because I didn't produce results. I made no effort at all.

I'm sure there are some conservative asshole Buddhists in some parts of the world, but I've never encountered any.

The fatal flaw in Catholicism is the belief that not only was Peter given great power on earth and beyond, but that he could transfer that power to a line of successors. That's the basis for a succession of popes, and it appears nowhere in the Bible. That centralized authority concept has led to too many problems to count.

Mohamed might agree with this, but Buddha and Confucius most likely would not. I can't imagine God stating that there is no god, no matter what the reason for it.

Claiming to speak for god or having unique and special insight into what he said is like writing yourself a blank check. The opportunities for abuse of that power are endless.

 

The money changers took up residence in the temple. Christ's church was ordained to feed people.

 

I will consider the existance of a supreme being if some kind of actual intercession occurs regarding human caused death,destruction,squalor,starvation,rapes,robberies,useless deaths by nature,greed,etc,ect. Hasn't it been time -for a very long time- for a caring and concerned deity with unlimited power to show up and make things right? This deity (?)everyone worries about so much ,if it exists,seems to have quite a streak of sadism. Why create an existance that is so unfair and oft times so horrendous to the created? I think a major apology is in order,if it's real in any sense and capable of such.

 

Deification is a specialized vocabulary.

 

I think it's a vocabulary of power and control in the wrong hands. I haven't seen the right hands yet.

 

Melts in the mouth, not in the hands.

 

I wouldn't describe it as a meltdown, probably a crisis. There will be fewer people in church each Sunday as a result.

 

:smilielol5:

 

Richard Dawkins plans to turn up the heat in this controversy when the Pope visits the UK in September:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece

 

Except there is no evidence that he did commit any crimes.

Again, if you look at his record--the delayed defrocking of an American priest was delayed because his appeal was delayed while the whole process was overhauled to make it speedier.

Second, there is no proof that he did anything some media news sources are arguing he did while Archbishop of Munich.


We'll see how well that works out for Dawkins.

 

In every country, the amount of evidence required for charging someone with a crime is lower than the amount of evidence needed for a conviction. The difference between the two thresholds varies from one country to another.

One might assume that the Pope's staff would not schedule a visit to a country that was likely to arrest him, but they could do an imperfect job of making those predictions, and the mere fact that he was avoiding certain countries could become a major embarrassment to the Vatican, and cause for further loss of credibility.

I think it is mind-boggling that these issues are even being seriously discussed, along with speculation on the chances that the Pope will resign. This is a radical development.

 

It was in the paper this morning that plans to arrest the Pope for crimes against humanity should succeed when he comes to visit the UK.

So, I guess the Pope will now staying away from here.

 

This refers to a process within the Catholic Church. He seemed to have no awareness or concern that laws had been violated, and that priests have no immunity to local laws. There is no reason for any national government to tolerate such an attitude.

His reputation and influence are about to go into free-fall. We haven't seen anything yet.

 

Well than what laws has he personally violated, or are you going to arrest him for violations of Church law?