# Pope Worries About 'Soulless' American Life



## Jay Bell

Foxnews reports:



> VATICAN CITY  Pope John Paul II (search) warned several U.S. bishops Friday that American society is in danger of turning against spirituality in favor of materialistic desires, giving way to a "soulless vision of life."
> 
> 
> 
> To fight this, the pontiff argued, the U.S. church must study contemporary culture to find a way to appeal to youths. He made his remarks to bishops from Indianapolis, Chicago and Milwaukee who were making a periodic visit to the Vatican.
> 
> The American church "is called to respond to the profound religious needs and aspirations of a society increasingly in danger of forgetting its spiritual roots and yielding to a purely materialistic and soulless vision of the world," John Paul said.
> 
> "Taking up this challenge, however, will require a realistic and comprehensive reading of the 'signs of the times,' in order to develop a persuasive presentation of the Catholic faith and prepare young people especially to dialogue with their contemporaries about the Christian message and its relevance to the building of a more just, humane and peaceful world."
> 
> John Paul added: "An effective proclamation of the Gospel in contemporary Western society will need to confront directly the widespread spirit of agnosticism and relativism which has cast doubt on reason's ability to know the truth, which alone satisfies the human heart's restless quest for meaning."
> 
> All bishops must visit the Vatican every five years. This year is the Americans' turn, and several regional delegations already have met with the pope.



Thoughts?

The part that caught my attention was the "human heart's restless quest for meaning."  I attended Church this Easter per the request of two friends...which was ironic as two agnostics (self included) and a Jew were in our row.  (hilarity has no bounds)  Anyway, during the sermon, it was mentioned how in the Pastor's mind, only God has the ability to answer the daunting questions within one's life that go unanswered.  So the above caught my eye as well.

The Pastor went on to explain that "all of us" have unanswered questions of life, duty, purpose, etc...and God is the method of the answers.  This somewhat dumbfounded me....I looked around the congregation (HUGE) and wondered, "Does everyone here have life questions?"  It bothered me to see all of the nods.

What are people's thoughts on this?  I honestly don't sit around wondering my purpose in life...I live it.  Juggling that type of question around in one's mind, to me, seems like a waste of time and resources.

I don't want this to turn into a religious debate....I'm just curious of people's opinions of what the Pope has said.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Constantly questioning your motives is not a bad thing. :asian:
Sean


----------



## Flatlander

In a way, the pope is certainly on the right track, as the youth do not seem do cling to the traditional dichotomies of the church as their parents and grandparents had, though its another question entirely as to whether its necessary to practice a particular faith in order to have those values...

The problem is motivation.  How can people be motivated to search for meaning?  Its a very personal journey.  I needed to find my own reasons.  I don't think any effort by any religeous organization would have catalyzed that decision for me.  I just needed to "get there".


----------



## michaeledward

I liked the way V'ger said it to Mr. Spock better ... but the essential question is the same, isn't it?

*"Is this all there is?"*

Mike


----------



## Rich Parsons

How could the Catholics reach out to Americans?

Here is an example of how not too.

When you build a brand new Gym, keep it locked up and not open except for school events and school hours.

Then when many of your youths join Young Life or another organization for youths that have sports and get togethers, the Church authorizes the Gym to be open only one night a week. The same night the other organization is holding their events. This good to keep your children in the dark of other groups, and to make sure you maintain your current population. It does nothing about bringing in those on the fence or searching. For now they have to choose which way to go. When if they could go to both, it would be two night a week they would be off the streets or busy, and possible learning.

Just my thoughts and opinions.


----------



## MA-Caver

flatlander said:
			
		

> In a way, the pope is certainly on the right track, as the youth do not seem do cling to the traditional dichotomies of the church as their parents and grandparents had, though its another question entirely as to whether its necessary to practice a particular faith in order to have those values...
> The problem is motivation.  How can people be motivated to search for meaning?  Its a very personal journey.  I needed to find my own reasons.  I don't think any effort by any religeous organization would have catalyzed that decision for me.  I just needed to "get there".



The main problem (IMO) is that parents are the beginning of a person's beliefs and values. If the parents don't work at instilling the good values and spiritual beliefs in their children then they grow up NOT having them and passing on those ideas on to their own children and so forth. 
What happened? A number of things in the past 30-40 years. 
Little by little I see the values and morals that I was raised on fading in the background or being made into punchlines. 
It starts at home and goes outward from there. Schools next and then higher education and so forth. 
Ultimately until we decide to teach our children the values needed this country will continue to degrade and descend and the issues that have been discussed so vividly here and in the MT Study and elsewhere will become worse and worse. 
Just my opinion of course...  :asian:


----------



## psi_radar

I don't understand the problem, since the pope and the fundamentalist christians must know the rapture's coming anyway,and our state of spiritual awakening is moot anyway. 

http://www.raptureready.com/

Seriously, though, the pope's got a point, though it's hard to take coming from the equivalent of a CEO of one of the world's wealthiest organizations. We're too materialistic! But don't forget your 10% to the church!

The fact that we all americans basically require 2 incomes to raise children and be established in the middle class is disturbing. I'll never forget something a professor in college told me back in '88--that he made $5600 a year in 1969 and was able to have a car and support his wife, child, and a mortgage.

We've made extreme sacrifices to keep my wife home with my son for his first five years. We will not be able to get ahead nor save for retirement in any significant way until she goes back to work. I work 50+ hours a week, which is more than my father did at my age making proportionally the same or more money. When's the time for spiritual growth? For that matter, a successful relationship with your spouse and children? At some point in the near future, there will probably be a breaking point.


----------



## superdave

The Pope doesn't have a problem harvesting our soulless American dollars, does he. Maybe he is afraid there will not be enough for the church if we keep on our materialistic ways.


----------



## Flatlander

Yes, there does seem to be some irony there...


----------



## Cruentus

I personally think that it is ouor jobs to find our "purpose" in life. I believe in God, and I believe that I was created for a reason, and I believe that part of why I am hear is to fulfill that "reason."

Anyways, I think that people would be better off listening to the pope rather then critiqueing him (and I am speaking generally, not just regarding this thread, as I think that Jay started a good discussion).

And...for those of you who would like to make the uneducated assertion that the Pope is "materialistic," I'd suggest that you read a little bit about his life, how he came up, and his lifestyle now before you make yourself look completely retarded.

PAUL


----------



## Jay Bell

Agreed....I didn't want this to be a 'badmouth the Pope' nonsense thread.


----------



## psi_radar

Tulisan said:
			
		

> And...for those of you who would like to make the uneducated assertion that the Pope is "materialistic," I'd suggest that you read a little bit about his life, how he came up, and his lifestyle now before you make yourself look completely retarded.
> 
> PAUL



there's really no doubt the pope has led a peaceful, compassionate life, full of struggle and hardship. However, good men can sometimes say ignorant, and ironic things. I never said he was materialistic, just the head of an organization that is extremely rich, and makes a practice of "wowing" the population with its own grandoise presentation. Ever been to the vatican? It is, in places, literally lined with gold. In others, the artwork adorning its walls is even more priceless. Its dazzling opulence struck me more than any other place I've ever visited. Cathedrals are historically the biggest and most impressive and costly architectural structures in most european cities. The ideology behind making structures like this was to present a psychologically impressive setting in which to inspire the congregation to join, and stay loyal to the church, since they appeared almost otherworldly, closer to the kingdom of god. Who paid for these?

The pope, monks, etc. are paid to explore spirituality to depths that other people, who support them, cannot, because they're busy living their lives, having children and working their asses off scrabbling for a living, rather than spending time exploring their spiritual nature. Some of whom pay their 10%. Personally, I'm happy to have the time to answer this thread. I'll spend some more time loving my family. I do try to set aside 10 or so minutes a day to contemplate the enormity of the universe and my place in it. I think the pope is a little out of touch, but a good and spiritual man.

To summarize, I think most of us are doing our best to find our place in the world. I just find it a little frustrating to be chided to do more than we already are when demands are already so great. But to be fair, I suppose that's included in Christian ideology.


----------



## Flatlander

Tulisan said:
			
		

> And...for those of you who would like to make the uneducated assertion that the Pope is "materialistic," I'd suggest that you read a little bit about his life, how he came up, and his lifestyle now before you make yourself look completely retarded.
> 
> PAUL


Please accept my apology.  I meant no disrespect to those who have dedicated their lives to spreading the Word, or those who follow a good path.  My concern is those who would use their power for things not conducive to the teachings of the great prophets, or for their own benefit.  Though I have obviously never met him, I'm sure the Pope is not one of those people.

Dan


----------



## Marginal

Jay Bell said:
			
		

> Foxnews reports:
> 
> The Pastor went on to explain that "all of us" have unanswered questions of life, duty, purpose, etc...and God is the method of the answers.  This somewhat dumbfounded me....I looked around the congregation (HUGE) and wondered, "Does everyone here have life questions?"  It bothered me to see all of the nods.
> 
> What are people's thoughts on this?  I honestly don't sit around wondering my purpose in life...I live it.  Juggling that type of question around in one's mind, to me, seems like a waste of time and resources.
> 
> I don't want this to turn into a religious debate....I'm just curious of people's opinions of what the Pope has said.



Dunno about that, but I found it funny that the Pope would be chastizing people for materialism. Don't see the Vatican giving away all those golden cherubs, priceless works of art etc that the Catholic church owns....


----------



## Cruentus

Marginal said:
			
		

> Dunno about that, but I found it funny that the Pope would be chastizing people for materialism. Don't see the Vatican giving away all those golden cherubs, priceless works of art etc that the Catholic church owns....



The Catholic Church could put all their priceless artifacts and art up for sale....but who'd buy it? Should priceless artifacts and art be sold at all? Maybe I should go to the Detroit Art Institute and tell them to sell all their artwork because Detroit is far to depressed to have a museum like that. Hey, how about if I start at the Detroit Art Institute, then go to the Henry Ford Museum, etc. etc. We could sell all the art and give it to the poor. Do you think that this would erradicate the poor if that happened? Don't think so. 

The art and artifacts in the Vatican are just that...art and artifacts; not liquid assets. THose things are a part of history that shouldn't be sold for any reason anymore then we should gut all the history and art museums in any major city. How was wealth aquired? Many different ways. For example, often times those large Cathedrals that you see in different areas were built by the poor, and by the monetary gifts from both poor and rich. People forget that in many areas throughout history, poor people wanted a Church they could go to and feel proud of, so they gladly donated what little money they had so they could have that beautiful church. Things aren't as they seem, but of course, people are quick to pass judgement.

I am not saying the Catholic Church, or any institution is perfect. I have heard homilies regarding tithing that cross well over the line of ignorance myself; and I have written letters against these as well. But the Pope's comments are dead on, in my opinion. He isn't talking about "tithing" here, or any other ridiculus thing that someone will "guess" he is talking about without actually reading what he said. He is talking about the dangers of materialism in our society, and our inner search for meaning. If you live in the U.S., you live in the most materialistic society in the world. Turn on any T.V. station if you don't believe me. We become more and more materialistic, while our middle class becomes poorer and poorer. This extremely dangerous not only to out "spirituality" but to our society and economy as well.

But, I don't think any of this is what Jay Bell started this thread to talk about.

I believe we are supposed to be talking about our inner search for meaning?

PAUL


----------



## Marginal

Tulisan said:
			
		

> The Catholic Church could put all their priceless artifacts and art up for sale....but who'd buy it?



Rich collectors, the Yakuza... Doesn't really matter to me. 



> Should priceless artifacts and art be sold at all?



Why not? the church could help the poor, or put money into curing some kind of disease etc. Stuff that's not about the materialism which they denounce abroad.



> Maybe I should go to the Detroit Art Institute and tell them to sell all their artwork because Detroit is far to depressed to have a museum like that.



Is Detroit issuing statements to the world that they are too obsessed with aquisitions and materialistic pursuits? Don't see the relevance. 



> We could sell all the art and give it to the poor. Do you think that this would erradicate the poor if that happened? Don't think so.



Perhaps. But at least the bald hypocrites would be gone. That has to be a societal good no matter how you wanna parse it. 



> The art and artifacts in the Vatican are just that...art and artifacts; not liquid assets.



They're assets. 



> How was wealth aquired? Many different ways. For example, often times those large Cathedrals that you see in different areas were built by the poor, and by the monetary gifts from both poor and rich.



Then there are plenty that were paid for in blood. 



> He is talking about the dangers of materialism in our society, and our inner search for meaning.



Which would actually mean something if he understood the society he's critiquing. 



> I believe we are supposed to be talking about our inner search for meaning?
> 
> PAUL



Which seems to mean, as long as your storing stuff up in Rome, it's ok. But damn the rest of the world if they want a golden cherub too.


----------



## Cruentus

The correlation between museums like the Detroit Art Institute and "The Church" is that State dollars and taxes (money that is supposed to be used to protect citizens) goes to the museums every year, and they don't pay taxes. So does this mean that Detroit, because it is somewhat depressed, shouldn't have things like Museums? Does this mean that poor areas shouldn't have nice Churches? Or that a church shouldn't have historical pieces of art and artifacts when there are people out there who are poor? Your arguement, I'm afraid, is "marginal."

And you should maybe do a little research or provide a little evidence before you provide outlandish claims. Church authority takes a vow to poverty; this means that your priests basically own nothing. The church does plenty to help the poor, and wealthy christians and catholics are known for donating $$ to organizations that help fight disease, etc. Your blanket statements have little wieght behind them. Provide evidence that the Pope doesn't understand society, or that selling artifacts is a great solution to help fight poverty, or which pieces of work were paid for "in blood" by the church, and maybe you'll have a good arguement.

The Church selling it's historical artifacts and donating the money to the poor is not the solution to poverty. If we sold Golden Cherubs as trophies to every Rich A-hole who'll but, and sites like the sistieen(sp?) chapel to Pepsico, poverty would still run rampet. You'd save a few at the expense of comercializing and capitalizing everything that is a part of our history, and on things that we should consider priceless and sacred. But the fact that wealthy elite and corporate control over the Vatican sounds like a great idea to you only should enlighten us more as to the validity of what the Pope said regarding materialism. If you want to fight poor, a better start would be with our own government, not the Vatican.

But, that's cool. We can corporatize everything. That way we can make everyone on the planet poor with the exception of maybe 1% of the population, enslaving the majority to the minority. Who needs that church crap anyways. See you at the salt mines.

PAUL

 :-offtopic But hey, weren't we talking about the inner search for meaning?  :idunno:


----------



## Jay Bell

> But hey, weren't we talking about the inner search for meaning?



Yep...once upon a time   I guess some just have some pretty dull axes lying around..


----------



## psi_radar

Tulisan said:
			
		

> The Church selling it's historical artifacts and donating the money to the poor is not the solution to poverty. If we sold Golden Cherubs as trophies to every Rich A-hole who'll but, and sites like the sistieen(sp?) chapel to Pepsico, poverty would still run rampet. You'd save a few at the expense of comercializing and capitalizing everything that is a part of our history, and on things that we should consider priceless and sacred. But the fact that wealthy elite and corporate control over the Vatican sounds like a great idea to you only should enlighten us more as to the validity of what the Pope said regarding materialism. If you want to fight poor, a better start would be with our own government, not the Vatican.
> 
> But, that's cool. We can corporatize everything. That way we can make everyone on the planet poor with the exception of maybe 1% of the population, enslaving the majority to the minority. Who needs that church crap anyways. See you at the salt mines.
> 
> PAUL
> 
> :-offtopic But hey, weren't we talking about the inner search for meaning?  :idunno:



I don't want to belabor this line of discussion, since the topic is the inner search for meaning, but Paul, remember the catholic church IS a corporation, tithes could be considered taxes, and if the Pope's a pauper he scored the most excellent refrigerator box on the planet to live in. The Catholic Church has done some good things and some questionable things for the world at large. Beyond judging it as a whole, it cannot be denied that its actions have always been driven by shrewd motives that ultimately have allowed it to be one of the most enduring, poowerful, and financially successful organizations in history. 

The thrust of my point, which must not have been clear enough, is that it is indeed difficult to contemplate our place in a world in which obligation, stress, and responsibility dictates and consumes our actions. Society here in the US does indeed play a role in this by setting certain materialistic goals. I don't like it anymore than anyone else. So what's the solution? We can all try to find our place in the world and find some degree of enlightenment before we go wherever it is we go, and hurt as few people as we can along the way. Is there any more than that to do?


----------



## Rich Parsons

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Rich A-hole
> 
> But, that's cool. We can corporatize everything. That way we can make everyone on the planet poor with the exception of maybe 1% of the population, enslaving the majority to the minority. Who needs that church crap anyways. See you at the salt mines.
> 
> PAUL
> 
> :-offtopic But hey, weren't we talking about the inner search for meaning?  :idunno:



Paul,

There are other Rich's on this board. They may not know you like I do.  What you call while drinking a beer is different then what is posted here. :asian: Not all will understand you. 

As to your last paragraph, the rich seem to get richer, and the poor get further away. The middle class is shrinking, and a small technical group will still be needed to maintain the system. As to the salt mines. imagine teh Harkonen's in the Dune saga's.
 :asian:


----------



## Cruentus

Jay Bell said:
			
		

> Yep...once upon a time   I guess some just have some pretty dull axes lying around..



 :rofl: 

To try to redirect the topic back on topic...

I think that the inner search for meaning relies on the exceptence of a couple of premises.

#1. You have to believe that there is a God.

#2. You believe that you were born with a purpose of some sort in mind.

When you buy those 2, then it becomes a question of whether or not your living your life within the path that God wants you to take, so to speak. I believe that this is a constant journey, such is our lives.

If you don't buy the 1st 2 premises, though, then searching for meaning seems, well, meaningless to me.
 :uhyeah:


----------



## psi_radar

Paul,

Please clarify or define your meaning of "god'. Is the God you mention a personified being of some type, a master architect, or a pervasive cosmic influence of some type?

 :asian:


----------



## Cruentus

psi_radar said:
			
		

> I don't want to belabor this line of discussion, since the topic is the inner search for meaning, but Paul, remember the catholic church IS a corporation, tithes could be considered taxes, and if the Pope's a pauper he scored the most excellent refrigerator box on the planet to live in. The Catholic Church has done some good things and some questionable things for the world at large. Beyond judging it as a whole, it cannot be denied that its actions have always been driven by shrewd motives that ultimately have allowed it to be one of the most enduring, poowerful, and financially successful organizations in history.



I'm sort of seeing this paragraph as another unfounded attack. The Catholic Church is a corporation where tithes are considered taxes? When you figure out whether you are talking about Government entities (who tax) or companies (who sell things), you let me know, K? And shrewd motives? Not sure what you mean, as shrewd could be bad or good, given that the word means clever or wise? How about I focus on the next paragraph...



> The thrust of my point, which must not have been clear enough, is that it is indeed difficult to contemplate our place in a world in which obligation, stress, and responsibility dictates and consumes our actions. Society here in the US does indeed play a role in this by setting certain materialistic goals. I don't like it anymore than anyone else. So what's the solution? We can all try to find our place in the world and find some degree of enlightenment before we go wherever it is we go, and hurt as few people as we can along the way. Is there any more than that to do?



I agree with most of what you said, cept' think that we can help as many as we can as well. I think that the Pope or "church" remarking on morals and ethics in society in a helpful manner is very appropriate, as that is what spiritual leaders should do. I see nothing wrong with his comment. I see nothing accusatory in what the Pope had said, but I guess that people will take things different ways depending on their baggage and experiences.

 :asian:


----------



## Cruentus

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Paul,
> 
> Please clarify or define your meaning of "god'. Is the God you mention a personified being of some type, a master architect, or a pervasive cosmic influence of some type?
> 
> :asian:



I mean "God" in the most general sense, not bound to any particular religion or ideal.


----------



## psi_radar

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I'm sort of seeing this paragraph as another unfounded attack. The Catholic Church is a corporation where tithes are considered taxes? When you figure out whether you are talking about Government entities (who tax) or companies (who sell things), you let me know, K? And shrewd motives? Not sure what you mean, as shrewd could be bad or good, given that the word means clever or wise? How about I focus on the next paragraph...






I didn't mean it as an attack, more of an explanation of my thinking, but take it as you will--'K? I said tithes could be considered a tax of sorts since it is an expected payment for anticipated services, the church overhead, the payment to St. Peter, whatever. Governments take money in the same way, in exchange for supposed programs and services. The Vatican actually has status as a government--a city/state. On the other hand, the church itself is considered a non-profit organization that is typically a non-taxed corporate entity. So it's both.

Shrewd simply means clever or wise, often used in context with business as leading to successful ventures. So they've been successful as a business by using shrewd methods and a great model. 





			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> I agree with most of what you said, cept' think that we can help as many as we can as well. I think that the Pope or "church" remarking on morals and ethics in society in a helpful manner is very appropriate, as that is what spiritual leaders should do. I see nothing wrong with his comment. I see nothing accusatory in what the Pope had said, but I guess that people will take things different ways depending on their baggage and experiences.
> 
> :asian:



You're right, helping people is always good. I'm moving away from the Pope thing now.


----------



## psi_radar

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I mean "God" in the most general sense, not bound to any particular religion or ideal.



I wasn't thinking about religion as the definition, rather what sort of being do you think it/he/she is? 

The reason I ask is because I believe in something similar to "the force" --sounds silly but it's the easiest way to describe it--a power that can influence events and makes the universe a cohesive place, but has no real plan in mind. God, as is traditionally thought of, is an architect with a grand plan, which, if you believe this, would definitely color your worldview differently than mine.


----------



## Ender

Interesting points, but some have fallen into the trap of questioning the messenger instead of the message. Sure you can find fault of the catholic church and maybe even this pope. However,the issue isn't the pope himself or the catholic church, the question is : is he correct in his observation?

I would say yes at this point. We as a nation have become more materialistic and more concerned about ourselves individually than others. Sure there are many giving, honest, caring people out there, but I think the number is shrinking. And yes, America still gives more money to charity than all the other nations combined. (I read somewhere that the US accounts for 51% of global charity by it's citizens). But I think the prior generation was more of a giving generation than this one is. The prior gneration would more readily sacrifice than this one, in my opinon. This generation seems more concerned with demanding their rights, forcing their morals on others thru the use of the government, not being "dissed", or how much they can get for themselves.

Something struck me the other day as I was listening to a commentator on the news. He said "When the Viet Nam generation dies off, Amercians will start to see things a bit differently." That statement hit me like a ton of bricks. Is the next generation ready to clean up our mistakes? are they worthy? Have we left them with enough training to stand on their own? To do the right thing? or to serve themselves? 

But like one poster said...it's up to the parents to teach the children. And by looking at the movies, the TV, the news, I think we have failed them. Being a journalist is no longer a noble profession, it has become a profession that sensationalizes and distorts. For what?....to get ratings or push thru a political agenda. And judging by some of the posters here, many don't know how to disseminate the facts from the opinons, so how can they teach their children? They can't.

I think America will collapse within 40 years because of these factors:

Decreasing freedoms because of governmental growth
Moral Decay
an increasing litigious society
A decrease in taking responsibilty for ones' own actions
An educational system that is fast becoming second rate.


Maybe the pope has a point or two.


----------



## Cruentus

psi_radar said:
			
		

> I wasn't thinking about religion as the definition, rather what sort of being do you think it/he/she is?
> 
> The reason I ask is because I believe in something similar to "the force" --sounds silly but it's the easiest way to describe it--a power that can influence events and makes the universe a cohesive place, but has no real plan in mind. God, as is traditionally thought of, is an architect with a grand plan, which, if you believe this, would definitely color your worldview differently than mine.



When I said that you have to buy the premise that "there is a God," I am refering to an anthropomorphic creator. In your definition, "God" is more like an energy with no plan (meaning ruled by chaos). I think in your definition, having a "purpose" in life is obsolete. Am I correct in saying this? It's kind of Taoist, and Taoist's (like Buddhists) are not concerned about "purpose."
 :asian:


----------



## Cruentus

Ender...Awesome post!


----------



## Marginal

Tulisan said:
			
		

> The correlation between museums like the Detroit Art Institute and "The Church" is that State dollars and taxes (money that is supposed to be used to protect citizens) goes to the museums every year, and they don't pay taxes.



You're creating a strawman. Once detroit starts telling people how they must live to live moral lives, then your point will begin to be relevant. As detroit does not decry materialism in defense of morality, it's not the same as the Papal edicts. 



> Your arguement, I'm afraid, is "marginal."



Wow. Two non arguments in one paragraph. 



> And you should maybe do a little research or provide a little evidence before you provide outlandish claims.



If the Pope needs to know nothing about US society, I need to know nothing about the church except that they live, breathe and bathe in opulence. (While claiming this is somehow bad.)



> Church authority takes a vow to poverty;


Lucky they have all those pre existing chariots of gold then. 



> Your blanket statements have little wieght behind them.


Cool. Then I'm just as an astute observer of world conditions as the Pope. I don't have to know anything as long as I'm making a statement from my perceived moral high ground. 

Combat materialism? Get rid of your material goods first. 



> Provide evidence that the Pope doesn't understand society, or that selling artifacts is a great solution to help fight poverty, or which pieces of work were paid for "in blood" by the church, and maybe you'll have a good arguement.


This is another nonargument. 



> The Church selling it's historical artifacts and donating the money to the poor is not the solution to poverty.



Why not?



> If we sold Golden Cherubs as trophies to every Rich A-hole who'll but, and sites like the sistieen(sp?) chapel to Pepsico, poverty would still run rampet.



Depends on how you distributed the wealth. Why do you keep tacking historical to the golden cherub though? It's just a statue. Doesn't really demonstrate anything about history except that the church is greedy. Already know that. 

That aside, please prove that donating billions to the poor wouldn't help conditions. (I love fruitless demands.) 



> You'd save a few at the expense of comercializing and capitalizing everything that is a part of our history, and on things that we should consider priceless and sacred.



I don't consider the Catholic church sacred. It's already commercialized, so we aren't sparing the world a great loss there either. On top of that, it has little historical impact on me personally. My ancestors were far enough away from Rome that the Papal army didn't really muscle the Papal editcs or demands for cash etc onto them. 



> But the fact that wealthy elite and corporate control over the Vatican sounds like a great idea to you only should enlighten us more as to the validity of what the Pope said regarding materialism.


Odd that you derive that conclusion from me saying that the vatacan should sell off their extraneous (but priceless) junk and donate the proceeds to improving the world around them rather than making insulting statements about the rest of the world and hoarding wealth like they're the only ones that get to do it. 



> If you want to fight poor, a better start would be with our own government, not the Vatican.


Red herring. Nonargument. (I also doubt you could provide any facts to support this notion one way or another.) 



> But, that's cool. We can corporatize everything. That way we can make everyone on the planet poor with the exception of maybe 1% of the population, enslaving the majority to the minority.



That has been the Catholic model for centuries. 



> Who needs that church crap anyways. See you at the salt mines.


Yeah. You life sucks, but since you can stare at a golden cherub on Sundays, it all works out for the better. Whatever. 



> :-offtopic But hey, weren't we talking about the inner search for meaning?  :idunno:



Yep. Begs the question, why is the Pope looking outwards if inwards is so important? Why improve the church or the world at large when you can whine about the US?


----------



## Cruentus

Marginal. Ax needed more grinding I see. That's cool, completely ignore the fact that your not only way off topic, but that my posts were in response to your off-topic attacks. But, I can see from your last post that your preparing for some sort of battle that your not intellectually equipped to follow through on.

However, I guess I have to respond, as off topic as this is still.

Now, first of all, you might want to learn about logical fallacies before you start accusing me of them. A straw man argument is purposely misrepresenting someone elses argument so you can knock it down. I didnt misrepresent your argument. First of all, the mayor and the Governor of the state have both criticized morality and materialism on occasion, but that is irrelevant to my analogy between church artifacts and state museums. The thing is, I could get on here and yell about the mayor of Detroit and how he has the nerve to tell the people of Detroit that he wants to help fight poverty, or that he criticizes the moral decay, when he is such a greedy bastard for allowing himself and his employees to get paid a decent salary, and how he spends tax dollars for the upkeep of museums with millions of dollars worth of objet d'art (there, my French give you an excuse to call me a commie as well), when he could sell all of it and give it to the poor of the community. That diatribe would be equally as logical as your argument that the church should sell its objet dart to eradicate world poverty.

Another thing, where do you get off saying that the Pope knows nothing about U.S. society? You have nothing to back this claim, but you sure as well have admitted that you know nothing of the Catholic church other then your own insular perception. When you prove or even provide an argument with evidence to support the idea that the Pope knows nothing about U.S. society, then we can talk about how 2 wrongs dont make a right, and that if it is wrong for the Pope to criticize a society that he knows little about, then it is certainly wrong for you to criticize a religion that you know little about. 

Now, do you want to know WHY just doling out some cash to the poor is not going to eradicate poverty? The problem with poverty isnt as shallow as, Poor people aint got no doe, The problem is structural. There are structural problems with capitalism that creates poverty, as well as there are structural problems with Global trade laws that prevent countries from getting ahead, as well as there are structural problems with other countries in their government systems that also creates poverty (especially in the third world). If we went to a country like, lets say, Indonesia, and gave everyone a million in American dollars, within a year or less the government of Indonesia would be richer, and many of its people would be impoverished all over again. The Church cant do anything about these structural problems by selling their artifacts, but they can by preaching morality and ethics. Also, the idea of give a man a fish, and hell eat for a day; teach him to fish, and hell eat for a lifetime also applies here as well. Through the work of missionaries, the church is trying to teach the people of the 3rds world how to fish, despite the oppressive regimes they are under. For some sources on understanding poverty, read, Framework for understanding Poverty By Ruby Payne, or The working Poor: Invisible America By David Shipler, or The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David Landes to start. The one consistent thing youll find is that the answer to poverty isnt Give the poor some money, and the problems go way beyond that. But, hey, Shipler is only a Pulitzer Prize winner and Landes is only a Harvard Professor, so they must all be idiots anyways.

But, despite everything I am saying, I like your attitude of, If it dont effect me none, then it must not be important. I dont think the Catholic Church or any of its objec dart is important, or that anyone elses culture or history matters, so F-em. Sell em off and rip em down. Thats the merican F-in way, dammit! Also, dont forget, Why improve the church or the world when you can whine about the U.S. Nice. Well, says you, not me. And people wonder why other countries think Americans are arrogant. Or, perhaps, the Pope was just being unpatriotic.  

But thats cool, dude. Dont worry about educating yourself, reading about history, or providing any evidence to your conjectures, or providing a logical argument to support your ideas. Just keep attacking the Catholic Church with no basis because they must be the problem. 

Soready to go back on topic again, on do you want to continue to criticize my faith? Maybe if you were a little bit less critical of my religion, then maybe Id be a little nicer to you.


----------



## Jay Bell

*I don't want this to turn into a religious debate....I'm just curious of people's opinions of what the Pope has said.*

Thanks, Paul for trying to keep things on track.  I guess I should have known better, eh?


----------



## Marginal

Tulisan said:
			
		

> blah blah blah... But, I can see from your last post that your preparing for some sort of battle that your not intellectually equipped to follow through on.


Yet more personal attacks. Yawn.



> However, I guess I have to respond, as off topic as this is still.


There are PM's you know. Email too. 



> Now, first of all, you might want to learn about logical fallacies before you start accusing me of them. A straw man argument is purposely misrepresenting someone elses argument so you can knock it down.


Yep. This is also what you did. 



> That diatribe would be equally as logical as your argument that the church should sell its objet dart to eradicate world poverty.


My arguement was that you can't attack a culture's materialism when you're blatantly materialistic yourself. See? I know what strawman means just fine. You're using it again.  



> Another thing, where do you get off saying that the Pope knows nothing about U.S. society? You have nothing to back this claim, but you sure as well have admitted that you know nothing of the Catholic church other then your own insular perception.


Red herring. 



> When you prove or even provide an argument with evidence to support the idea that the Pope knows nothing about U.S. society, then we can talk about how 2 wrongs dont make a right,


Feel free to prove that he does know what he's talking about.

For that matter, please feel free to prove that society is actually in any meaningful way suffering morally. (Though keep in mind that issues that restrict the rights of free thinking people simply due to a document compiled around 300ADC aren't proof of declining morality in my view.) 



> and that if it is wrong for the Pope to criticize a society that he knows little about, then it is certainly wrong for you to criticize a religion that you know little about.



I know plenty about Catholicism. I'm just not going to try harder than the Pope to support my posistion. If it's weak, then it simply demonstrates that the Pope's is weak as well. 



> Now, do you want to know WHY just doling out some cash to the poor is not going to eradicate poverty? The problem with poverty isnt as shallow as, Poor people aint got no doe, The problem is structural.



That's nice, but since all I suggested was that they use the money on the poor, I can't really be said to have claimed that the Pope should be giving poor people bags of money at leaving it at that.



> The Church cant do anything about these structural problems by selling their artifacts, but they can by preaching morality and ethics.



Actually both accomplish about as much productive social growth. Catholic morality probably accomplishes less overall abroad in the long run. (The church has encouraced the spread of AIDS though their prohibition of contraceptives etc which has definitely caused more problems rather than lessened any...) 

At least the money could provde support to establish the needed social structures. (Pity your myopic view of what constitutes charity prevents you from realizing this.)



> Also, the idea of give a man a fish, and hell eat for a day; teach him to fish, and hell eat for a lifetime also applies here as well.



Yep. Kinda why I'm advocating a new teaching hospital over a box of Bibles. 



> Through the work of missionaries, the church is trying to teach the people of the 3rds world how to fish, despite the oppressive regimes they are under.



Among other things. 



> The one consistent thing youll find is that the answer to poverty isnt Give the poor some money, and the problems go way beyond that. But, hey, Shipler is only a Pulitzer Prize winner and Landes is only a Harvard Professor, so they must all be idiots anyways.



Cool. Another strawman, and a personal attack. You're really good at knocking over points I never made. Huzzah. 



> But, despite everything I am saying, I like your attitude of, If it dont effect me none, then it must not be important. I dont think the Catholic Church or any of its objec dart is important, or that anyone elses culture or history matters, so F-em. Sell em off and rip em down. Thats the merican F-in way, dammit!



Actually all I said was that the wealth the church has been hoarding for centuries could be better applied to the world's social problems. You're just putting words into my mouth. Guess you have to prove you're smart or something along those lines. (That only works if you can avoid intellectual pratfalls like these unfortunately.) 



> Also, dont forget, Why improve the church or the world when you can whine about the U.S. Nice.



On the scale of productive things to do, criticising the US culture doesn't top my list. It's the same song that's been the refrain of every generation since the dawn of time, and despite that, things actually continue to improve. You'd think someone would make the connection that "better" doesn't equal "freefall into depravity". As far as statements go, it's pretty much the ultimate non argument. It cannot be proven, and the only way to even attempt to lend it credence is to offer vague comments or circular reasoning. Silly me thinking that doing something that's actually useful would be a better use of the CC's time. 

Think carefully about this statement, "This are getting worse." 

Now, is it true? Has anyone ever bothered to prove this? Does the fact that they cannot ever prove this give you pause? Along the lines of the topic, I think people need to ask themselves that before sauntering up to the poduim and loudmouthedly proclaim that the US society's going to come crashing down in 40 years. (My prediction, things are going to continue along much the same as they are now. Probably more social freedoms will be granted in that time, but oddly, things won't erode into chaos.) 



> Well, says you, not me.



Well, that's only partially true at best given that you fabricated the first half of my statements there. 



> And people wonder why other countries think Americans are arrogant. Or, perhaps, the Pope was just being unpatriotic.



Shame on me for thinking that governing the US culture wasn't the Pope's job. 



> But thats cool, dude. Dont worry about educating yourself, reading about history, or providing any evidence to your conjectures, or providing a logical argument to support your ideas.



Yes... That's the problem. I'm an idiot. Whatever. 



> Just keep attacking the Catholic Church with no basis because they must be the problem.



It is kind of ironic that you're complaining about the decline of the middle class while defending the Catholic Church when it was the protestant movement that made the middle class largely possible in the first place. France, a solidly Catholic nation lagged sharply behind England (which had the luxury of being able to ignore the Pope's army) in developing a Democratic government... Largely because Catholicism reinforced feudalism etc.



> Soready to go back on topic again, on do you want to continue to criticize my faith? Maybe if you were a little bit less critical of my religion, then maybe Id be a little nicer to you.



Odd. I thought I was criticising a stupid, essentially unverifiable and invalid statment made by the Pope. If the Pope equals Catholicism, or if those golden cherubs do, well, SORRY.  Didn't realize your faith was quite that superficial. :boing2:


----------



## qizmoduis

Jay Bell said:
			
		

> *I don't want this to turn into a religious debate....I'm just curious of people's opinions of what the Pope has said.*
> 
> Thanks, Paul for trying to keep things on track.  I guess I should have known better, eh?



My opinion is that the Pope should mind his own business.  As an American and an atheist, my life is far from "soulless".  My response would be, rather than my life being "soulless", it is his life that has been meaningless, striving after a mistaken and basically anti-human ideal and institution.


----------



## Cruentus

Jay Bell said:
			
		

> *I don't want this to turn into a religious debate....I'm just curious of people's opinions of what the Pope has said.*
> 
> Thanks, Paul for trying to keep things on track.  I guess I should have known better, eh?



Unfortunatily, I should have known better too. God forbid we mention anything regarding spirituality w/o it turning into a debate over religion, and God forbid we mention anything about Catholicism without it turning into a huge anti-Catholic slam-fest.

I also find it funny that if I were Muslim, Pagan, or Atheist, and a bunch of Catholics or Christians were being critical of my beliefs or my leadership or my religion, then people would be all over it screaming intolerance and religious persecution. But since the slams are only against the evil papacy, then I guess its all o.k. Those damn Catholics shouldnt deserve tolerance anyways.  

Also, everyone, keep in mind that I wouldn't be "debating" anything if A-holes with little self-control could refrain from slamming on my religion for 2 seconds and stick with the supposed topic. 

*Marginal* Chopping up someone's post into little bitty pieces and responding with 1-phrase answers is fairly obtuse. But you continue to do so, as it suits your argument perfectly. As your comments continue to degenerate, your ethnocentric, egocentric, bigoted, and intolerant worldview continues to show through. Apparently, if it ain't a WASP, then it ain't right. That's O.K., as an Irish-Catholic, I'll be proud to be racked up in the same category as them gays, blacks, and Jews, in your mind.   So far, you've accused the Catholic Church of harboring an army, enforcing feudalism, spreading aids, and hording the worlds wealth, among other broad and false accusations. Yet, I am sure you'll argue that you're not a bigot. Yet, your sweeping generalizations is about the logical parallel to saying that "the blacks" are harboring armies with gangs and political groups, crowding "our" jails with "their crime," spreading aids with drug use and promiscuity, and trying to get "our" money with "dem affirmative action laws." Then, to boot, you claim to not be slamming on my religion, which is like someone asserting the above statements about "blacks" then claiming to not be racist. Hey, if it walks like a bigot, sounds like a bigot, what do you expect me to think? But that's O.K., because for some reason it is perfectly acceptable to be bigoted towards the "evil papacy" in our culture.  :shrug:

I love comments like this though: 



> I'm just not going to try harder than the Pope to support my posistion. If it's weak, then it simply demonstrates that the Pope's is weak as well.



Sure...make a false claim about the Popes knowledge/education to support your assertion that you don't have to educate yourself, or provide evidence or logic to support your assertions, and then claim that your weak arguements somehow make the Popes assertions weak as well. Sounds like a convienent cop out to actually having to learn anything. And you claim to be logical? Oh...and still waiting for that straw-man arguement to appear. Just because you alter your arguement as you continue to look stupid, that doesn't mean that I have created a straw man. Besides, even with your re-articulated assertion that, "you can't attack materialism when your blatently materialistic," my analogy still applies just fine; have you seen the Mayor's or Governor's house? Also, "Red Herring" is when irrelevent material is brought into the discussion to divert attention from the real arguement. Still waiting to see me do that. Just because you yell out "red herring" with no explaination as to how, that doesn't make it so.

So, what do we have so far from you? We have religious intolerance and bigotted assertions with illogical arguements and no evidence, backed with the crazy notion that "I don't need to provide a logical arguement or evidence for my accusations because I don't think that someone else is doing so." But that's cool, man; I wasn't using my rights to be met with religious tolerance anyways. "White power."


----------



## Cruentus

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> My opinion is that the Pope should mind his own business.  As an American and an atheist, my life is far from "soulless".  My response would be, rather than my life being "soulless", it is his life that has been meaningless, striving after a mistaken and basically anti-human ideal and institution.



I am seeing a trend here, one that Ender articulated in his post. People seem to be intent on attacking the source rather then discussing what was said. So, you have a psychological aversion to Christianity, or Catholicism? Didnt Jay originally say that he wanted to discuss the ideas rather then having a religious debate? This means discussing what was said rather then who said it. This means refraining from your unfounded opinions regarding the person or institution from which the comments came. This means not taking a broad assertion (such as materialism is soulless) as a personal attack (I think this means that he says I am soulless).

Ah, but what The F do I know? Its way more fun to slam a religion when the opportunity arises. Never mindcarry on, carry on.


----------



## psi_radar

Tulisan said:
			
		

> When I said that you have to buy the premise that "there is a God," I am refering to an anthropomorphic creator. In your definition, "God" is more like an energy with no plan (meaning ruled by chaos). I think in your definition, having a "purpose" in life is obsolete. Am I correct in saying this? It's kind of Taoist, and Taoist's (like Buddhists) are not concerned about "purpose."
> :asian:



Correct! Though the term chaos is a little absolute; things tend to fall into patterns like the dirt moved from a stone on the bottom of a riverbed. Now you see where I'm coming from. Therefore my spiritual quest is for a sort of confluence with this energy rather than the role of someone in a grand plan. 

So my point is, depending on where you're coming from and what you believe, "spirituality" can be drastically different. 

For example, my wife is from a long line of scientists. They're atheists. To them, the quest for mystical meaning is purposeless, when you could be dealing with real, unimagined issues here. They look upon organized religion as a whole as a racket for its leaders and an escape for its followers. 

Faith isn't easy to come by. Either you have it or you don't; acquiring it takes a huge mental leap. For those who don't have it, thinking about it is a waste of time.

That doesn't mean atheists aren't good and compassionate, with sound morals. Indeed, the fact that they act as they do without fear of eternal consequences is a testament to their good nature. So do we all need to focus on the spiritual more? Or on general self-improvement?

Edit: Or I should probably ask, which has more impact on society--focusing on internal development of spirituality or external morality, and are the two truly intertwined?


----------



## Cruentus

> Or I should probably ask, which has more impact on society--focusing on internal development of spirituality or external morality, and are the two truly intertwined?



I'd have to say that they are intertwined. That's just what I think. I stole this from a friend of mine, but basically, you have 4 things...

1. Morals: Beliefs from tradition or religion or personal background/upbringing.
2. Values: Personal Beliefs
3. Ethics: Generally excepted beliefs in society.
4. Laws: Government regulation

Not all are the same, but they all have an intricate relationship with one another. Morals could have been influenced by others peoples personal values, the ethics of the society from which they came, and the laws that dictated the locals from which they came. Personal values are influenced by morals, ethics, and laws. Ethics can be stemed from laws, but is usually the collective values of the society. Laws can come from ethics, but can also be pushed through from values or morals of a few influencing the law.

Now, I believe that there needs to be some sort of idealist philosphy rather then only materialism to determine morals and values. If it is only materialistic ideals that dictate these things, then personal values will only go as far as "what's good for me." Society would crumble if everyone was only thinking about "whats good for me." The only reason personal values go beyond selfishness is when a certian level of idealism is in place, which then violates the materialists way of thought. 

Plus, if you you buy the idea that there is a God who created a conscience within all human beings(as I do), then you also buy that no matter how hard you try, the materialist cannot escape a certian degree of idealism (as I do). This is why I don't buy the premise that "all athiests are immoral," a common premise that Christians want you to believe. I may disagree with them, but that doesn't make them immoral. It depends on what they are doing. This is because if I believe that the same God created the athiest as he did me, and that God gave us all a conscience, then we are both going to have some degree of "correct" values within ourselves (unless there is some sort of abnormality, such as with psychological disorders).

Also, I agree with you that "Faith" is a difficult thing in our society. More and more the tradition of science and reason supercedes religious values, and basically says "don't ever go by faith...prove it!" Our collective view, or ethics, also disregards faith. Laws are never made on faith (thank God). The problem that occurs is that people don't personally value faith anymore. This is ironic because just about everything that you know to be true inside of you, you take on "faith" eventually (read Freud and Nietzche and Pascel for more on that), yet it is disregarded in almost every aspect of our culture. As a Christian, I feel that this becomes a problem because people tend to ignore their own conscience. Ignoring your own conscience becomes a problem in my view because you can logically reason yourself into or out of anything, so morals and standards start to erode from there. People then are only going by there own worldviews (consious and subconsious), laws, ethics, and seculat traditions to determine their values. Standards become obsolete, and giving them moral advise is the equivelent to telling a blindman to find the yellow building.

Sorry. Ramble, Ramble. My short answer is that to truely have any standard of values at all, there needs to be some level of idealism (belief in something beyond the physical). Just IMHO.

 :asian:


----------



## qizmoduis

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I am seeing a trend here, one that Ender articulated in his post. People seem to be intent on attacking the source rather then discussing what was said. So, you have a psychological aversion to Christianity, or Catholicism? Didnt Jay originally say that he wanted to discuss the ideas rather then having a religious debate? This means discussing what was said rather then who said it. This means refraining from your unfounded opinions regarding the person or institution from which the comments came. This means not taking a broad assertion (such as materialism is soulless) as a personal attack (I think this means that he says I am soulless).
> 
> Ah, but what The F do I know? Its way more fun to slam a religion when the opportunity arises. Never mindcarry on, carry on.



I have an aversion to mysticism and supernaturalism.  Not just christianity.  Christianity, especially Catholicism (being an ex-Catholic) are what I am most familiar with, thus receive most of my attention in situations like this. 

But anyway, Jay asked for responses to what the Pope said, and I gave it, and you decided to blast out a diatribe about Catholic-bashing yet again.  Perhaps I should've just restricted my opinion to something along the lines of "Uh...I disagree".  That's not very elucidating, however.

This constant whine of anti-christian bashing is getting old.  Christians are perfectly happy to trash the heck out of all non-christian viewpoints with impunity, but deity-forbid anyone dares to utter a word in response.  The shrill cries of anti-christian persecution are deafening.  I'm tired of it, frankly.  Nearly as tired as I am of religious folk's constant clamoring about having a stranglehold on life's purpose and meaning.  It's pathetic, and annoying, and off-topic besides.  You have no claim on life's purpose.  You have no claim on life's meaning.  You have no claim on spirituality.


----------



## Cruentus

Quiz,

lets reread Jay Bell:



> What are people's thoughts on this? I honestly don't sit around wondering my purpose in life...I live it. Juggling that type of question around in one's mind, to me, seems like a waste of time and resources.
> 
> I don't want this to turn into a religious debate....I'm just curious of *people's opinions of what the Pope has said.*



I bolded for emphasis. The thread is supposed to be about "What" the Pope said, not about the Pope, or the church, or about mysticism, or about how evil Catholics are, or about how stupid, bible beating, and unamerican Paul Janulis is, or whatever other crazy critics you would like to throw in. The thread is about "What" he said. We are not supposed to be having a religious debate. When you make broad slamming statements on a religion, not only are you off topic, but you are spawning the exact kind of religious debate that we aren't supposed to be having.

Just because YOU have a problem with Catholicism, or Christianity, that doesn't mean it's O.K. to hijack the thread to take the opportunity to slam on someones religion, because , well, ya just can't help yourself.

And to demonstrate the complete level of intolerance and bigotry that you are showing me regarding MY religion, I am going to quote what you said in your last paragraph, except I am going to leave blank the reference to Christian/Catholic/religious folk so you can fill it in with another group, such as "gays" or "blacks" or "Jews" or "women." Have fun.

This constant whine of anti-________ bashing is getting old. ________ are perfectly happy to trash the heck out of all non-________ viewpoints with impunity, but deity-forbid anyone dares to utter a word in response. The shrill cries of anti-________ persecution are deafening. I'm tired of it, frankly. Nearly as tired as I am of ________ folk's constant clamoring about having a stranglehold on life's purpose and meaning. It's pathetic, and annoying, and off-topic besides. You have no claim on life's purpose. You have no claim on life's meaning. You have no claim on spirituality.

Ya wanna know where your REALLY wrong. Your assessment that I have no claim on life's purpose, meaning, or spirituality. Bull-F-inS**t! We ALL have claim to those things.


----------



## Rich Parsons

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I'd have to say that they are intertwined. That's just what I think. I stole this from a friend of mine, but basically, you have 4 things...
> 
> 1. Morals: Beliefs from tradition or religion or personal background/upbringing.
> 2. Values: Personal Beliefs
> 3. Ethics: Generally accepted excepted beliefs in society.
> 4. Laws: Government regulation
> 
> :asian:



  Mr. English Major  

I could not resist.


----------



## Cruentus

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Mr. English Major
> 
> I could not resist.



heh. What can I say...I like to give you options as to which word you'd like to use.  :lool:


----------



## Jay Bell

*chuckle* Thanks again, Paul 

Is it really so difficult to jot down thoughts about what the Pope said?  Are people that really tight assed about *anything* to do with a religion or religous figure?  I'm about ready for a Mod to close this...it's getting nowhere.


----------



## psi_radar

Jay Bell said:
			
		

> *chuckle* Thanks again, Paul
> 
> Is it really so difficult to jot down thoughts about what the Pope said?  Are people that really tight assed about *anything* to do with a religion or religous figure?  I'm about ready for a Mod to close this...it's getting nowhere.



Jay, when you talk about politics or religion, you're bound to get fundamental, unresolvable conflicts in beliefs. And just because you don't belong to something doesn't mean you can't have strong feelings about it--in fact, that might be why you don't belong in the first place. You elicited those opinions, and this is what you got. I wouldn't expect it to go very far, but we all might pick up a little something along the way. 

You've been sort of mum on the subject, except for encouraging Paul every now and then. In your initial post, you stated how surprised you were at how much of the congregation were spiritually adrift. I'm not being snide here. You seem to have reached a comfort zone in how you live your life--have you ever made some sort of conscious decision or plan, or do you find yourself driven by an internal spirituality?


----------



## Jay Bell

Definately internal.  I honestly have a hard time relating to a good number of people because of me questioning their "moral character"<?>  I'm not guided by religious texts, though their philosophies chime in and help me keep a clear head.  One thing though -- I didn't intend to come across saying that they were "spiritually adrift".  I just had a very difficult time understanding how a room of people were all in the same boat in that regard.

While I do agree with you about "unlocking the fundamental" wave...we're all adults...if it's that difficult to put said things on the backburner for a two page discussion, people just plain need to learn how to relax.


----------



## psi_radar

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I'd have to say that they are intertwined. That's just what I think. I stole this from a friend of mine, but basically, you have 4 things...
> 
> 1. Morals: Beliefs from tradition or religion or personal background/upbringing.
> 2. Values: Personal Beliefs
> 3. Ethics: Generally excepted beliefs in society.
> 4. Laws: Government regulation




Interesting, ok, I'm with you so far... with the exception that I believe that morals can be innate rather than nurtured--and the result can still be different than personal values. I think of these two things as the ends of the acceptable behavior spectrum. Morals tell you what you cannot do, values tell you what you should do. 



> Not all are the same, but they all have an intricate relationship with one another. Morals could have been influenced by others peoples personal values, the ethics of the society from which they came, and the laws that dictated the locals from which they came. Personal values are influenced by morals, ethics, and laws. Ethics can be stemed from laws, but is usually the collective values of the society. Laws can come from ethics, but can also be pushed through from values or morals of a few influencing the law.



Ok...





> Now, I believe that there needs to be some sort of idealist philosphy rather then only materialism to determine morals and values. If it is only materialistic ideals that dictate these things, then personal values will only go as far as "what's good for me."



We can agree on this point too, if we can agree that idealism can originate from a non-religious or spiritual source, such as emotions. 



> Society would crumble if everyone was only thinking about "whats good for me." The only reason personal values go beyond selfishness is when a certian level of idealism is in place, which then violates the materialists way of thought.
> 
> Plus, if you you buy the idea that there is a God who created a conscience within all human beings(as I do), then you also buy that no matter how hard you try, the materialist cannot escape a certian degree of idealism (as I do). This is why I don't buy the premise that "all athiests are immoral," a common premise that Christians want you to believe. I may disagree with them, but that doesn't make them immoral. It depends on what they are doing. This is because if I believe that the same God created the athiest as he did me, and that God gave us all a conscience, then we are both going to have some degree of "correct" values within ourselves (unless there is some sort of abnormality, such as with psychological disorders).



Ok, though this is a little patronizing toward non-believers. 



> Also, I agree with you that "Faith" is a difficult thing in our society. More and more the tradition of science and reason supercedes religious values, and basically says "don't ever go by faith...prove it!" Our collective view, or ethics, also disregards faith. Laws are never made on faith (thank God). The problem that occurs is that people don't personally value faith anymore. This is ironic because just about everything that you know to be true inside of you, you take on "faith" eventually (read Freud and Nietzche and Pascel for more on that), yet it is disregarded in almost every aspect of our culture.



Actually, we take very little on faith in general. A better example for our times might be Alduous Huxley--perception is considered reality. Faith in a mystical presence is a leap of logic, because we can't necessarily perceive it. At least not all of us. Faith that a fork will pick up a piece of food is a logical conclusion based on experience and perception that everyone shares. It's not really "faith" in the religious sense at all.  



> As a Christian, I feel that this becomes a problem because people tend to ignore their own conscience. Ignoring your own conscience becomes a problem in my view because you can logically reason yourself into or out of anything, so morals and standards start to erode from there. People then are only going by there own worldviews (consious and subconsious), laws, ethics, and seculat traditions to determine their values. Standards become obsolete, and giving them moral advise is the equivelent to telling a blindman to find the yellow building.


Conscience is not exclusive to the religious. Can you explain the following:
"As a Christian, I feel that this becomes a problem because people tend to ignore their own conscience," 

Why would being a Christian make lack of conscience in an individual or society more disturbing than to a non-religious individual? Do non-believers hold individuals to less of a moral standard? 



> Sorry. Ramble, Ramble. My short answer is that to truely have any standard of values at all, there needs to be some level of idealism (belief in something beyond the physical). Just IMHO.



I guess we just have a fundamental disconnect here, unless you include compassion and love as idealism, and then we're right on the same page. 
Thanks for the discussion.
 :asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Interesting, ok, I'm with you so far... with the exception that I believe that morals can be innate rather than nurtured--and the result can still be different than personal values. I think of these two things as the ends of the acceptable behavior spectrum. Morals tell you what you cannot do, values tell you what you should do.
> . . .
> Thanks for the discussion.
> :asian:



Psi_Radar,

In some cultures it is ok for the oldest child not of the gone through the right of manhood, to deal with any deformed children born into the tribe. This is acceptable cultural behavior.

In our culture this action is not acceptable.

Hence Morals being right and wrong can be culturally defined.

In cultures that have similiar growths would have similiar morals. Yet not always the same.

Look at the Victorian attitudes towards sex here in the USA, and it is not quite the same as in England/ Canada/Austrailia/New Zealand (* All English speaking cultures. *) Some things are acceptable and others are not.

Now, Individuals may break the mold and have morals, yet to claim no influence from their culture even a negative response to the culture woudl be difficult in my opinion.

 :asian:


----------



## psi_radar

Rich, I see your point, though I consider 1 and 2 of Tulisan's continuum:

1. Morals: Beliefs from tradition or religion or personal background/upbringing.
2. Values: Personal Beliefs
3. Ethics: Generally excepted beliefs in society.
4. Laws: Government regulation

to be of a personal nature, not societal. Your example of the youngest child tasked to kill deformed children I would consider an example of societal ethics, rather than the morals of the individual. Even if the person was permitted and directed to do the killing, they still might be internally conflicted about the act due to their personal morals. 

Just a different perspective.
 :asian:


----------



## Marginal

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Also, everyone, keep in mind that I wouldn't be "debating" anything if A-holes with little self-control could refrain from slamming on my religion for 2 seconds and stick with the supposed topic.



Boo hoo. You've done nothing but insult people personally who disagree on broad levels with the CC's stance on various issues. Perhaps you consider yourself being personally insulted or whatever, but I'm not buying your cries of discourtesy *now* when you're calling me a bigot, a moron, a liar etc from the your first response onwards.  



> *Marginal* Chopping up someone's post into little bitty pieces and responding with 1-phrase answers is fairly obtuse. But you continue to do so, as it suits your argument perfectly.



Merely a habit. (Much like your smug condesension and personal attacks I imagine.)



> As your comments continue to degenerate, your ethnocentric, egocentric, bigoted, and intolerant worldview continues to show through. Apparently, if it ain't a WASP, then it ain't right.


Uh right, that's what I've been saying. 



> That's O.K., as an Irish-Catholic, I'll be proud to be racked up in the same category as them gays, blacks, and Jews, in your mind.



Nice. Now we resort to libel. You hold that intellectual high ground dearly... *cough*



> So far, you've accused the Catholic Church of harboring an army,



Accusation nothing, the Vatican had one of the largest armies in Europe during feudal times. It's in history texts aplenty, so I'm not sure why this is news, much less an unfiar accusation. 



> enforcing feudalism,



Also verifiable through study of history. 



> spreading aids,



Telling people not to use condoms is certainly going to do so, and has.



> and hording the worlds wealth,


I beleive I've always left it at hoarding weath. Yet another intellectualy dishonest and lazy attempt to sully *me* rather than my argument. 



> Yet, I am sure you'll argue that you're not a bigot. Yet, your sweeping generalizations is about the logical parallel to saying that "the blacks" are harboring armies with gangs and political groups, crowding "our" jails with "their crime," spreading aids with drug use and promiscuity, and trying to get "our" money with "dem affirmative action laws." Then, to boot, you claim to not be slamming on my religion, which is like someone asserting the above statements about "blacks" then claiming to not be racist. Hey, if it walks like a bigot, sounds like a bigot, what do you expect me to think? But that's O.K., because for some reason it is perfectly acceptable to be bigoted towards the "evil papacy" in our culture.  :shrug:



I dont' have to since you're simply claiming I've said things that I have not. I've made no attempt to psychonalayize you or presume on your thought processes either. This is nothing but a personal attack on me by you because I disagree with your views. I havent' attacked you. I haven't even insulted you, but you've done me that favor at every turn. I bow to your intellectual superiority, honesty and tolerance. 



> Oh...and still waiting for that straw-man arguement to appear. Just because you alter your arguement as you continue to look stupid, that doesn't mean that I have created a straw man.



The problem always was that my argument remained the same while you tried to twist it. 



> Besides, even with your re-articulated assertion that, "you can't attack materialism when your blatently materialistic," my analogy still applies just fine; have you seen the Mayor's or Governor's house? Also, "Red Herring" is when irrelevent material is brought into the discussion to divert attention from the real arguement. Still waiting to see me do that.


The potential dissolution of the middle class, my "axe grinding", my "bigotry". The fact that public museums and the vatican are very different things etc. You have offered plenty. 

If I'm intolerant of anything it's that I'm intolerant of you and your attempts to intellectually bully people into silence if they happen to disagree with your little world view.


----------



## OUMoose

Just as a little sidenote, the Vatican does have one of the largest Para-military (only dubbed as such since it technically isn't a soverign country IIRC) forces in the world in the Knights of Malta  and the swiss guard (couldn't find a direct link for this one, but there are numerous references).  I'd have to find the actual numbers, but I'm pretty sure of that. 

Anyways, please continue the flame war.   :asian:


----------



## Marginal

Nope. I'm done. 

He can take what I say and claim I really said that I eat babies for all I care. There's no discussion going on here anymore.


----------



## Cruentus

Marginal said:
			
		

> Nope. I'm done.
> 
> He can take what I say and claim I really said that I eat babies for all I care. There's no discussion going on here anymore.



Oh, so know your done. Well, F-U. If you blatently attack someones religion in a bigoted manner, then you should expect to be treated ill. I hope it was worth it.


----------



## qizmoduis

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Quiz,
> 
> lets reread Jay Bell:
> 
> 
> 
> I bolded for emphasis. The thread is supposed to be about "What" the Pope said, not about the Pope, or the church, or about mysticism, or about how evil Catholics are, or about how stupid, bible beating, and unamerican Paul Janulis is, or whatever other crazy critics you would like to throw in. The thread is about "What" he said. We are not supposed to be having a religious debate. When you make broad slamming statements on a religion, not only are you off topic, but you are spawning the exact kind of religious debate that we aren't supposed to be having.



Stop exaggerating.  Nobody (or at least me, anyway) called you stupid, bible beating or unamerican.  The biggest problem with your objection, however, is that the Pope was making a religious statement, from a religious perspective, as head of a world-spanning religion.  It's rather difficult to criticize or comment on what he said without addressing the religious aspects.



> Just because YOU have a problem with Catholicism, or Christianity, that doesn't mean it's O.K. to hijack the thread to take the opportunity to slam on someones religion, because , well, ya just can't help yourself.
> 
> And to demonstrate the complete level of intolerance and bigotry that you are showing me regarding MY religion, I am going to quote what you said in your last paragraph, except I am going to leave blank the reference to Christian/Catholic/religious folk so you can fill it in with another group, such as "gays" or "blacks" or "Jews" or "women." Have fun.
> 
> This constant whine of anti-________ bashing is getting old. ________ are perfectly happy to trash the heck out of all non-________ viewpoints with impunity, but deity-forbid anyone dares to utter a word in response. The shrill cries of anti-________ persecution are deafening. I'm tired of it, frankly. Nearly as tired as I am of ________ folk's constant clamoring about having a stranglehold on life's purpose and meaning. It's pathetic, and annoying, and off-topic besides. You have no claim on life's purpose. You have no claim on life's meaning. You have no claim on spirituality.



Oh please!  This kind of nonsense should be made a corollary to Godwin's law.  Now you're trying to tell me that criticizing a religion is bigotry?  Especially a religon that I grew up in? Give me a break.  A religon, first of all, is not an ethnic group.  It is a set of beliefs around which is wrapped an institution designed to enforce and promulgate those beliefs.  It's a power structure.  It's a shadow-government in many ways.  In many areas of the world, religious power structures have MORE power than governments.  But you want religions and religious beliefs and the behavior of religious people to be off-limits to criticism.  That's crap.



> Ya wanna know where your REALLY wrong. Your assessment that I have no claim on life's purpose, meaning, or spirituality. Bull-F-inS**t! We ALL have claim to those things.



You misread.  Or I wasn't clear enough.  It is a common claim of many religious leaders that their ways/beliefs/practices are the only ways in which a person's life can have purpose and meaning.  That is what I have a problem with.  I can't begin to count how many times some well-meaning evanglizer has told me that my life has no meaning or purpose, or that I can't be a moral person, since I'm an atheist.  And I don't go around telling people that I'm an atheist either.  People find out because they start telling me how great their church, or group, or whatever is and try to get me to go.  They tell me, right to my face, that I'm immoral, or evil, or unamerican.  They tell me I'll go to hell, or that I should be arrested, or that my daughter should be taken away from me.  They tell me that I'm sick.  This is the reaction that I get, 9 times out of 10.

You aren't one of those people, which is a refreshing change from the norm I've experienced.  It's just too bad that you keep reading persecution and bigotry into what should be addressed as valid criticism in most cases.  I understand that you don't like my attitude towards mysticism and supernaturalism, but accusing me of bigotry is really beyond the pale.

In any case, if I did take this off-topic, I apologize.  But don't expect me to suddenly agree with everything you say.  Later on, I'll see if I can address the Pope's specific comments without saying anything that will ruffle your feathers too much.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Gentlemen....

I just skimmed this thread, so this ones 'generic'

Cool it down.  This isn't a religeus free-for-all.


----------



## Cruentus

Qizmoduis,

Listen, I have never had problems with debating, or had problems with people having personal opinions about why they don't want to follow (or "believe in") a particular religion. I think you know this about me from previous threads. Catholicism has come up in many threads before this one, and has almost always been met by objection of some kind. Not a big deal. My problem with many of the comments that have been said in this thread is that they have been very discriminatory (collectively, not just by you, and no, not ALL your comments were that way). There are ways to critique something without bashing someones faith or beliefs. I know you know this, because we've had the religious discussion before, and I don't remember either one of us "bashing" each other during it, even if we disagree with each others philosophy. 

The second problem is that this thread isn't really supposed to be about the Catholic Church, it is supposed to be about the philosophy regarding the idea of having a 'higher purpose.' I think we can discuss a philosophy (and even criticize it) without criticizing the philosopher. I know that as an athiest, you could offer a unique perspective on this philosophy.

A couple of last points, remember that your outlook on religions in general is just that, YOUR outlook. Also, I will say that I am truely sorry that you have had bad experiences with Christians in general. I know from my own experiences that bad experiences with a particular group could make it more difficult to have an open communication on a topic.

 :asian:


----------



## qizmoduis

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Qizmoduis,
> 
> Listen, I have never had problems with debating, or had problems with people having personal opinions about why they don't want to follow (or "believe in") a particular religion. I think you know this about me from previous threads. Catholicism has come up in many threads before this one, and has almost always been met by objection of some kind. Not a big deal. My problem with many of the comments that have been said in this thread is that they have been very discriminatory (collectively, not just by you, and no, not ALL your comments were that way). There are ways to critique something without bashing someones faith or beliefs. I know you know this, because we've had the religious discussion before, and I don't remember either one of us "bashing" each other during it, even if we disagree with each others philosophy.
> 
> The second problem is that this thread isn't really supposed to be about the Catholic Church, it is supposed to be about the philosophy regarding the idea of having a 'higher purpose.' I think we can discuss a philosophy (and even criticize it) without criticizing the philosopher. I know that as an athiest, you could offer a unique perspective on this philosophy.
> 
> A couple of last points, remember that your outlook on religions in general is just that, YOUR outlook. Also, I will say that I am truely sorry that you have had bad experiences with Christians in general. I know from my own experiences that bad experiences with a particular group could make it more difficult to have an open communication on a topic.
> 
> :asian:



I agree with you all they way, although we probably have different trigger points on what is considered "bashing".  Actually I'd say that's pretty obvious.   

Sorry if I went off a bit.


----------



## Kevin Walker

The Pope is not the only one worried about the current 'status quo' of American values and ethics.

In my opinion, America has become a nation of Soldiers, Lawyers, and Engineers (sound familiar?), in other words, the new Rome!  The Romans fought alot, and the Greeks thought alot!  And similar to ancient Rome, America demands instant satisfaction and immediate gratification.

I see this in the way Americans teach and practice the martial arts.  They want, rather, demand to be blackbelts, have no respect for their senseis, and senseis tend to be underqualified and money hungry.  

American Martial Arts students question the spiritual development provided by martial art training and demand just the technical and pragmatic techniques so they can make money in professional martial arts matches, then quit martial arts training when their competition days are over.

Yes, there are many fine Americans who do not fit this generalization, but I feel they are in the minority nowadays.  Even though I am a good Roman Catholic, I am not an automaton and don't always agree with the Pope on several issues, but I feel the Pontiff is correct in this observation.


----------



## TonyM.

These would have been valid observations in the late '40s or the fifties. 
This coming from a misogynist in '04 is pathetic beyond words.


----------



## SMP

I think the Pope should be more concerned with the Soulless priest whithin his "organization".


----------



## bassplayer

good god, I was going to write something when I started reading this, but this whole thread really did get off track. I skipped reading all of the flaming because it just wasnt relevant.

"The Pastor went on to explain that "all of us" have unanswered questions of life, duty, purpose, etc...and God is the method of the answers. This somewhat dumbfounded me....I looked around the congregation (HUGE) and wondered, "Does everyone here have life questions?" It bothered me to see all of the nods.
What are people's thoughts on this? I honestly don't sit around wondering my purpose in life...I live it. Juggling that type of question around in one's mind, to me, seems like a waste of time and resources.

I don't want this to turn into a religious debate....I'm just curious of people's opinions of what the Pope has said."

Is what the pastor said THAT abstract that _in general_ (to avoid any misconstruation here,) people are unable to identify with it? In looking beyond the scope of what the meaning of your life is, or what life on this planet is, you necessarily go into the realm of the metaphysical. I believe that since we have the presence of mind to debate such matters, then IMO it would be logical to assume that there is more to life than our mental and biological functions. Not that there is anything wrong with _living it,_ I quite enjoy spending my time here to its fullest, but I also cannot accept that when I die, I will completely cease to exist. I dont get that in general, the science minded person is disbelieving of religion because of empirical measurement (or lack thereof!) Personally, my faith came through my study of sciences - science is only from a perspective of *how, *not *why.* "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." 

To tie all of this in, "its the question that drives us." So many doubt the question's relevance or applicability, so many dont understand how it ties into morality. I'm not necessarily directing that at anyone in particular, because generalizations are just that. When taken in the general context, the lack of the question is why such a large percentage is so focused on 'worldly' things. Its not a bad thing to focus on your life and the pursuit of happiness, its a big part of what we're here for, but I also think that you need to look beyond as well. When I was younger I heard such things like God being the answer and never understood and just dismissed it as people getting a little overzealous touting their bibles (or whatever relevant religious manuscripts, to take it out of a specific religion's context.) But when I really sat back and asked the questions of myself, what do I think of what else there is, or might things I do here affect what happens after here, I understood why it has been said that god is the answer. A general answer to a general question  Its not going to give you specific answers to the specific questions, those are for you to ponder and decide for yourselves, and there's no guarantee you will find those answers, either.
I think its the upbringing that is a big factor here. If parents arent asking questions of themselves, then it is possible or likely that the children wont, either. There are always the exceptions, but as a mass, this is becoming a trend, and I agree _in general_ with the pope's assessment.


----------



## Marginal

Marginal said:
			
		

> Yep. Begs the question, why is the Pope looking outwards if inwards is so important? Why improve the church or the world at large when you can whine about the US?



Wow. A ding on my rep months later. "Ignorant." How enlightening. I now recant. Please Pope, tell me what to think.   

Honestly though, the single most offensive aspect of the initial quote is the whole "evils of materialism" angle. It just fails on so many levels. Is there a quantifiable materalism index that actually shows that people want more stuff now vs 10 years ago? 50? 100? Were people somehow less materialistic back in the 1500's, where 90% of most populations were oppressed so that a select few could live in splendor? Or were there just a lot more happy campers back then?

It's always going to be dissapointing to me to see people, (regardless of ther station) claiming that society's going to heck in a handcart, NOW. Things just aren't that bad, and I have a hard time seeing in light of the social strides forward we've made as a race, that we're all doomed because H2's are in vogue for the moment.  

On the other hand, is there any particular reason I absolutely must see a golden cherub made by men as a sacred object? You can hold it sacred if you like, but there's no reason I have to also pretend that your sacred object is any more special than a golden ox or what have you. I dont' beleive as you do. Get over it.


----------



## Cruentus

:deadhorse


----------



## OUMoose

Tulisan said:
			
		

> :deadhorse



*chuckle*


----------



## Marginal

If you have nothing to say, waste bandwidth instead.


----------



## GAB

Hi all,

I think the topic did get off the subject, but I think it was a little diffucult to stay on track right out of the gate.

But I enjoyed it, reading it reminded me of the feelings that all of us have and we are sometimes afraid to say.

I want to thank the admins and the moderators for letting it go and allowing it to wind itself down.

It is like the Donkey and the Elephant group. How did they get so narrow at one end and wide at the other?

Thanks to all for the comparisons. I watched it squirm like a serpent and it still was interesting. 

I am suprised it did not go more toward the trend that has happened in the last few years(about the problems that have plagued the church since time immemorial) and yet we seem to let it go and then it raise's its ugly side time and again.

I think the whole idea of the Pope to reach out to America's Priest population and say we need to rewind the minds of the youth is very interesting to say the least.

Considering that the Priesthood in the Church is about as far from what a family related life style in America is, and for them to want to dominate that lifestyle is very interesting to say the least.

Thanks for the reading material for the last 30 minutes.

Regards, Gary


----------



## The Prof

I think that the pope should look at the at his own soulless clergy who covered up the abuse of children.  They excommunicate those that use birth control, divorce and remarry.  But for decades they  transferred known pedophile priests from parish to parish.  Why were they not excommunicated?

They still forbid the use of condoms even if one of the married partners is HIV positive.  Hopefully the church will come into the 21st century and pay less attention to the words of man and more attention to the words of God.

Right here in Palm Beach County, the last two bishops left in disgrace, they were pedophiles.  They replaced one bum with another.

This was not meant to be offensive or an attack on the church.  If it comes across like that, I sincerely apologize.  

If you can read betwen the lines you will know where I'm coming from.


----------



## Cruentus

I find it interesting that about once a month now since this thread originally died, it seems that someone revives this thread for the sole purpose of taking shots at the Pope or the Catholic Church. So, are we having fun yet, or could we just let this one die?

 :deadhorse


----------



## OUMoose

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that about once a month now since this thread originally died, it seems that someone revives this thread for the sole purpose of taking shots at the Pope or the Catholic Church. So, are we having fun yet, or could we just let this one die?
> 
> :deadhorse



Would you rather a new thread be started each month, when someone "feels the itch"?   :idunno:


----------



## The Prof

Greetings,

I hope that your post was not a reply to my comments, as I was not taking a shot at the pope or the Catholic Church.  Everything I stated is absolutely true.  If truth is offensive that's pretty sad.  I respect the papecy very much.  But the truth is what it is.  

I have the absolute right to be critical and truthful.  I earned that right when at the age of eleven, my innocence was taken from me by one of them.

Since I am not going to engage in a battle of the words, this will be my last words on this matter.  Blessings upon you!



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that about once a month now since this thread originally died, it seems that someone revives this thread for the sole purpose of taking shots at the Pope or the Catholic Church. So, are we having fun yet, or could we just let this one die?
> 
> :deadhorse


----------



## Cruentus

Prof.,

I am sorry that you innocence was taken by one of "them;" but you do realize that "them" could have been a teacher, a relative, a Karate instructor, as well as a clergy member?

Child abuse and sexual abuse is a very evil thing that plagues many areas of our communities, not just clergy, would you not agree?

You started your post with "I think the pope should look at his own soulless clergy...". When people say things like this, they are expressing the assumption that the Pope has not criticized his own clergy, but only criticizes American materialism. Well, the Pope had criticized his own clergy on the issue. Therefore, this is not a "true" implication, even if the statement of what you think the Pope should do in itself may be true.

Most sane people who are Catholic clergy and laymen are horrified by the church scandle, and extremely pissed and equally horrified about the coverups by the Bishops involved. And, while things have been done about the issue, many Catholics want more to be done. But because there are problems, this does not mean that one cannot critically look at the issue of a culture materialism.

So, now you know why your post triggered my response; yet, my response wasn't directed specifically AT you, Prof. It was meant for everyone.

The original poster posted this thread to discuss a philisophical issue brought up by the Pope. Since then, people have utilized this thread to take the opportunity to slam the Pope, Slam a religion (Catholicism), and/or slam a relgious organization (Catholic Church). Well, I got news for everyone: the intent of this thread was not so people could ventalate their biased and often misconstrued fustrations on a particular religion. The intent of this thread was to discuss a philisophical issue; plain and simple.

Yet, since this thread died in June, almost monthly someone uses it to take a snip at Catholism. Well, I am just wondering if we are done yet?

Paul


----------



## The Prof

_*It could have, but it wasn't.*_ 



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> Prof.,
> 
> I am sorry that you innocence was taken by one of "them;" but you do realize that "them" could have been a teacher, a relative, a Karate instructor, as well as a clergy member?
> 
> Child abuse and sexual abuse is a very evil thing that plagues many areas of our communities, not just clergy, would you not agree?
> 
> You started your post with "I think the pope should look at his own soulless clergy...". When people say things like this, they are expressing the assumption that the Pope has not criticized his own clergy, but only criticizes American materialism. Well, the Pope had criticized his own clergy on the issue. Therefore, this is not a "true" implication, even if the statement of what you think the Pope should do in itself may be true.
> 
> Most sane people who are Catholic clergy and laymen are horrified by the church scandle, and extremely pissed and equally horrified about the coverups by the Bishops involved. And, while things have been done about the issue, many Catholics want more to be done. But because there are problems, this does not mean that one cannot critically look at the issue of a culture materialism.
> 
> So, now you know why your post triggered my response; yet, my response wasn't directed specifically AT you, Prof. It was meant for everyone.
> 
> The original poster posted this thread to discuss a philisophical issue brought up by the Pope. Since then, people have utilized this thread to take the opportunity to slam the Pope, Slam a religion (Catholicism), and/or slam a relgious organization (Catholic Church). Well, I got news for everyone: the intent of this thread was not so people could ventalate their biased and often misconstrued fustrations on a particular religion. The intent of this thread was to discuss a philisophical issue; plain and simple.
> 
> Yet, since this thread died in June, almost monthly someone uses it to take a snip at Catholism. Well, I am just wondering if we are done yet?
> 
> Paul


----------



## Marginal

Tulisan said:
			
		

> The original poster posted this thread to discuss a philisophical issue brought up by the Pope. Since then, people have utilized this thread to take the opportunity to slam the Pope, Slam a religion (Catholicism), and/or slam a relgious organization (Catholic Church). Well, I got news for everyone: the intent of this thread was not so people could ventalate their biased and often misconstrued fustrations on a particular religion. The intent of this thread was to discuss a philisophical issue; plain and simple.


 There's a really easy response to this post...

Then there's the minor fact that not everyone is obligated to like the CC. Somehow Rome has yet to crumble despite this.


----------



## Cruentus

Marginal said:
			
		

> There's a really easy response to this post...
> 
> Then there's the minor fact that not everyone is obligated to like the CC. Somehow Rome has yet to crumble despite this.



I am not saying that anyone has to like anything; and certianly nobody has to like the Pope or the "CC." But the main thing I am saying is that slamming on a particular religion or organization or church leader has nothing to do with the original topic.


----------



## Marginal

Regardless, hypersensitivity and rep dings don't seem to be accomplishing much. (Does anyone actually go away when hit with an anon rep ding? Ot otherwise?) Get the thread closed if it upsets you this much. It's apprently relentlessly off topic, or anything that's said on topic is wittily covered by a dead horse emoticon, which also stultifies any potential OT discussion.


----------



## TonyM.

Personally I'm an iconoclast that loves to speak ill of the dead and say "I told you so". Just because no one else will.


----------

