Why is the Pope so important?

how many saints are there? how many GET PRAYED TO? thats one of the biggies, the ten commandments, the ones laid down by god, not decided to be mortal sins by the younger/bastard sons of nobles with grudges against their order of birth.

 

If religious beliefs didn't exist we would still have social values. When you live in a society you develop basic social rules on how you treat eachother. That is going to happen anywhere people have to relate to other people on a day to day basis. What your heart has to say has nothing to do with it (the heart is just an organ after all). It is as simple as that.

It is an ignorant concept to believe that people wouldn't have morality or social conscience without religion.

Just because religion has adapted some standards of social law doesn't mean it that social law wouldn't exist without religion. If we didn't have religion we would still have to find a way to relate and treat eachother as a society. It wouldn't be a raping, murdering, theiving free for all. And if you think that you need to take up the study of sociology, rather than just assuming your idea is correct just because it sounds good.

 

You have to be kidding me right?

Are we are going to start changing the meaning of words now in order to solidify claims? Sounds about right though.

Morality is knowing the difference between good and evil or right and wrong.

Morality and religion go hand in hand. Without religion, morality would not exist because good/right and evil/wrong would not exist.

 

Sorry, not true. Religion did not give birth to morality...ever think that maybe morality gave birth to religion?

People worshipped gods and believed in good and evil because bad and good things would happen to them, and they wanted to encourage the good and discourage the bad from happening. So they tried to appease the "gods" (or the forces outside their control) to look favorably upon them.

But the plain fact of the matter is that religion and morality does not necesarrily go hand in hand, and there is no reason to think morality wont exist independant of religion.

And I am not changing the meaning of anything. Morality (or "good" and "evil") is completely subjective. One culture can think it is completely moral to marry your daughter off as a young teenager, while another will find it wrong. Some cultures think having multiple wives is good and moral, while others think it is wrong. It also depends on the time period. In the past women were treated like property, it was the norm and no one was "wrong" to do it; while now we would call it morally wrong. Human sacrifices to the gods is another example of something "good" for the gods in the past that is no longer socially acceptable (moral). "Morality" is determined by social and cultural standards and laws. This does not mean I changed the meaning of morality.

mo·ral·i·ty

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

 

Ok, take any and all religious beliefs out of the equation.

Now, explain the origin of good and evil.

What gave birth to morals?

What is it that makes us understand how certain things are wrong?

 

The pope is only as important as you make him to be. To me, he is just another old priest with a big hat.

 

Society and civilization gave birth to morals. Human interaction gave birth to morals. It doesn't take spirituality to realize you don't want your stuff stolen and in that case you shouldn't steal others.

 

Ok, so at this point we don't know it's wrong to steal, we just don't want it happening to us. So what happens when all the bigger guys who fear noone takes from everyone?

 

So is it religion or morality that tells us it's wrong to molest little boys?
(and to protect those who molest them)

 

I know it's hard to see outside of your little box, but it doesn't mean that everything outside of it is moronic. One time and you're out. Ha! That's a laugher. Best he could? I thought he was in charge -- the head cheese. I'm sure he could have kicked these men out if he wished, but mostly all he did was shuffle them around.
Paid out millions. Wow. I'm almost speechless there. I'm sure the money is a great consolation to the victims. To think that the church could be absolved of this by paying a fine is beyond ludicrous.
It is a cult -- a dangerous and powerful cult riddled with abuse. God would be ashamed.

 

That does happen. Not everyone has criminal tendancies, but people from time to time are going to step outside the boundries of the moral "status quo." There are people who feel like they do not need to comply with the morals their culture and society has set. Or think they are above those morals. So societies have created laws on how to deal with those people; they are judged and punished.

Who says morality stems from fear? Maybe your religious morality does, but morals in general stem from basic social evolution. As time periods, technology, medicine, psychology, etc...advance so do our morals, our ideals of right and wrong. These morals evolve from social and cultural interaction. Those who don't want their stuff stolen realize others do not as well, so they understand the value of not running around stealing fron meighbors all the time. He does know it is "wrong" to steal because he realizes how it could hurt him to have his stuff stolen, and therefore stealing from others would be damaging to them. It has nothing to do with religion or fear.

 

You do in the very same paragraph.

I'd say that's fear of retaliation wouldn't you?


Anyway, this debate can go on forever. My point is morality and religion go hand in hand, otherwise there is no point to morals. Without fear of retaliation of a greater power there would be no morality. If we, without a doubt and 100% sure, knew no higher power existed then total chaos would consume the world. Who would care about anything? All you would have is a world full of hatred and the stronger people rounding up and killing the weaker. People would do whatever they wanted when they wanted. We would have never gotten to the point of any organized sensible government had it not been for religious/moral beliefs. No matter how much you try to seperate the two it just doesn't jive with how we arrived at our current status. You can't just base your idea of not needing religion based on modern days. You have to go back to the beginning of what you believe to be the start of the human race and explain how your scenario got us to where we are today.

 

I'm not religious and I still have morals. Many would say that same.

 

It isn't fear of retaliation. It is respect and social understanding for eachother. Only children don't do certian things just to "not get in trouble" but an adult understands the benefits of living in a society where we support and respect eachother.

And this isn't an idea based off modern days. I clearly point out that as the times change, technology changes, medicine changes, as we learn more about the human psychology, we see changes and evolution in morality as well.

This all does go back to the beginning of the human race. We are social creatures, and always have been, and therefore have evolved (and I am taking this right from the definition of morality here) standards of right or good conduct. Conduct that is beneficial to a society. You don't need religion in order to have that. It is a pretty simple concept, I can't understand why you can't grasp it.

And, excuse me, but are you psychic? Do you have access to a parellel universe where they are sure no god exists? There is no possible way that you can know that the world would be chaos and everyone would be consumed with hatred if we were 100% sure no god exists.

I do not believe in god, in my mind I have completely satisfied myself that there is no god. But I have very high standards on how human beings should be treated. Why? Because I care about people. I myself am a human being, a social creature. I don't need a god to tell me to be. I already am. I despise oppression, genocide, war, poverty, starvation, AIDS. I buy and give to Goodwill, recycle, drive a fuel efficient car, give food to the homeless vet that begs down the street. I don't kill, steal, rape, pillage, or cheat on my husband. All this, and I am not religious or spiritual in the least bit.

So like I said before, just because your idea sounds good doesn't make it correct, no matter how much you would like it to be. It is complete conjecture.

Like I suggested before, maybe you should look into sociology to learn a little about human social evolution.

 

The Church did not support the Nazi's, another myth that I have debunked on here on more than once.

 

I don't live in a little box like you do. I am minoring in Religious studies, and have researched and experienced many different religions, but the difference is I can back up what I say, you don't.

The Pope did not shift anyone. It was the bishops in several diosceses that were shifting priests around, not the Pope. Every news article will tell you that. Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

It obviously meant alot to the victims since they sued and priests have gone to jail and rightly so, what else should be done? Pope John Paul changed the law to a zero tolerance policy, what else is he supposed to do?

None of your accusations hold up, and it's pathetic.

 

We don't worship saints, we ask them to pray for us to God, just as you would ask your friend to pray for you in a difficult time.

 

It is a cult -- a dangerous and powerful cult riddled with abuse. God would be ashamed.

Are you certain that the catholic church is not tresponsible for abuse, jozak

http://news.yahoo.com/fctmpl=fc&cid=34&in=US&cat=Catholic_Church_Abuse_Scandal

http://www.americancatholic.org/News/ClergySexAbuse/

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/16/1082055655959.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/priests/

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/






The Catholic church's mishandling of pedophile scandals among its clergy has been going on for hundreds of years, a new book reveals.
Father Joseph Calasanz, a 17th century Spanish priest who founded the Piarist Order to educate the children of the poor, remains a revered figure who was canonised in 1767. An elegant statue stands in his memory at St Peter's in Rome.

Scholars who have been educated by the order, which has 1500 priests across the world, include Goya, Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, Bruckner and Victor Hugo.

But a British academic has uncovered a secret, hidden for more than 300 years in the Vatican archives. Father Joseph, whose order was suddenly and mysteriously shut down for a period by Pope Innocent X in 1646, was guilty, like many since, of suppressing accusations of child abuse against his colleagues.

Karen Liebreich, a historian, claims: "The contemporary Catholic church's practice of moving a suspected pedophile away from the original scene of the crime for fear of ensuing scandal and the backlash clearly has long antecedents."

Her book, Fallen Order, quotes from a letter Father Joseph wrote to the headmaster of one of the order's schools in Naples in 1631 about a priest accused of abuse: "I want you to know that your reverence's sole aim is to cover up this great shame in order that it does not come to the notice of our superiors, otherwise our organisation, which has enjoyed a good reputation until now, would lose greatly," Father Joseph wrote.

The accused priest, Stefano Cherubini, a member of a well-connected Vatican family, did not hesitate to pull strings with Francesco Albizzi, assessor of the Inquisition, and managed to supplant Father Joseph briefly as head of the order.

It was not until 1646 that the complaints against him and other senior Piarist priests became widespread and the order was temporarily closed down.

Father Joseph moved priests and even promoted them when claims of abuse were made against them - a system of "promotion for avoidance" the church has practised ever since.

Pope Innocent's decision to close the order has usually been explained by its alleged indiscipline, Cherubini's political machinations, and members' friendship with the heretical astronomer Galileo.

But Dr Liebreich's book states: "Molesting children was a grave misdemeanour then, yet the authorities, despite innumerable protests, did nothing.

"It can only be that they did not consider abuse of children by a priest to be a matter of enough gravity to prevent that priest becoming universal superior of a teaching order."

Dr Liebreich said the modern order might be shocked to learn the outcome of her research. But she added: "I am not sure that the Vatican will even read what I wrote."
source ~ http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/16/1082055655959.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true

 

Well, techincally you are religious and spiritual you just don't want to accept it as your belief and that's fine. But to us, the very reason you have the ability to care and respect others is spiritual. We can only agree to disagree.

Well, your idea is a complete conjecture as well so keep that in mind.

 

Actually no, I am not religious or spiritual. Sorry. It isn't spirituality that makes me want to treat others well, it is the fact that I belong to the human species, humans are my brothers and sisters and I care for them.

First off, it isn't my idea, it is simple sociology. And it isnt conjecture,it has evidence. It is based off the study of human history and human civilization.

con·jec·ture
n.

1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
2. A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork:

You said that the world would be chaos without religion, that we would be consumed with hatred. Where is your evidence for that? (I personally see a lot of hatred stemming from religion...)