Poll: are the catholics outdated?

[Thaluikhain]

Hmmm...if I answer yes, I offend the Catholics.

If I answer no, I offend homosexuals, people with AIDS, women etc.

How am I supposed to pay lip service to tolerance here?

 

[Tipsy Giant]

all religions are outdated and have been for some time, we are too informed to be believing in the supernatural

"It is not I who claims to be better informed, with answers man has no way of knowing, it is the religious people who have misconceptions of importance and intelligence" Tipsy Giant

 

[messy]

The fact that they only just now allowed, in some cases, the use of condoms to prevent the spread of a disease that was killing and infection millions of people in Africa I'm willing to call them out dated.

That's not a good reason to do so as it doesn't show they are.

What place of power do you think they're taking? Because the only one I see them taking is one in which people voluntarily choose to listen to them and if you're going to stop that you're just being a tyrant. Nor do I see why you're trying to attribute deaths to them right here and now.

OK but once it's a given that people are going to listen, and places in Africa they are going to listen, then you have certain responsibility when you start sending them messages. And if these are messages that put human lives at danger at the cost of possible lives (and if each was truly a possible life then sex is basically mass murder.) Since a condom only kills that extra one sperm really, and out of several million sperm that's essentially nothing.

If you're going to complain about people listening, then complain only if they listen to the full message. If they're having extra marital sex, but listening to the condom part then how is it their fault people are only listening to part of the advice?

And out dated is a perfectly good reason to be against something, the medical system of the "four humours" in the body is outdated massive but we don't cure people by drugs and medicine just for the novelty of it. Because by definition something outdated, if it truly is outdated, is no longer relevant to our time so why the hell should we care about it?

That one is demonstrably outdated. The way you used it, nothing was demonstrably outdated.

OK I think I understand what your saying, this isn't an insult of your intelligence more of my comprehension, do point out if I have mis-interpreted.

Telling people they can't use Condoms in an area rife with sexually transmitted disease due to the doctrines of something written two thousand (or less) years ago by humans (whether or not you have faith in the truth of the Bible is irrelevant it was most defiantly written by humans) is a little bit outdated. Sure some laws from 2000 year sill have some use, like do not murder etc., but the Pope still preaches that loyalty to a higher power is always more important then the preservation of human life. This to strikes me as the preservation of a patriarchal system which just oppresses large numbers of people. Also these laws are good laws regardless of whether the Pope says them or not.

A large number of people are not religious so to them the Pope is outdated. So therefore it makes sense if he can provide a figurehead of morality regardless of someone's religion, however the majority of the laws come up independently. No society, pretty much, has allowed things like murder and theft. Such things are intrinsically detrimental to what we see society as.

Do let me know if that's not clear (I'm not trying to be patronising just I'm quite liking this debate.)

 

[ace_of_something]

I have watched the catholic religion closely, and ever since pope benedicit took over the papacy the church has fallen into middle age idea's again.I can't help but feel disgust at the blatant homophobia and anti-family planning which is slightly out of date in the 21st century.

I think it's time the world took a stand and made these 'men of god' realise they have no place of power in todays society (it does'nt help that the catholic church is possibly the most corrupt in the world).How many more deaths and horror's will be carried out in the name of 'god' by the major churches of the world?

So I still think catholics should be able to exist, but the pope should be taken down and left forever, as most catholics I know don't like him either.And possibly following that, the church of islam would follow as allthough most muslims are not bad people the values the religion teaches are out of date in a modern world.

so what do you fellow escapists think?

p.s this is not a hate tread so please respect others views and opinions thanx

Wow ummm... you don't really know that much about the catholic church do you?
Benedict while, not great, has tried a few things to update to modern times. For example: condoms and fancy red shoes.
Outside of the pedophilia scandles not sure what murders and such they've committed recently.

Hey you know what I just got done doing? [a href=http://www.boystown.org/] Volunteering at this Archaic institution[/a]
Ya know the Catholic one... that changed pretty much world wide how orphanages are run (less like prisons more like schools) and helping troubled kids and families.

A large group can do bad, but they can do just as much good. What is going to get a better shelter for the homeless? A church with 30 people in a strip mall. Or asking for $1 from thousands of people in a region once a week?

You can't make blanket statements about a religion with this many adherents.
The pope doesn't really DO that much day to day. He makes decrees saying "we as a people don't believe in gay sex" or "we believe that everyone no matter how evil should be forgiven" (which is a big part of the problem with this pedophilia business)
Ya know what that changes at your weekly mass?
Bupkis.

The last time they effected any major sort of change was Paul VI in the 1960's (or was it 50's?) when he said 'services shouldn't be in latin they should be in the language of those attending'

 

[Blaster395]

all religions are outdated and have been for some time, we are too informed to be believing in the supernatural

"It is not I who claims to be better informed, with answers man has no way of knowing, it is the religious people who have misconceptions of importance and intelligence" Tipsy Giant

Agreed, largely because of their complete intolerance towards anything, and often being completely hypocritical.
Anyone who took any time to read the bible would know that the god it portrays is evil, chaotic, causes random violence, and is entirely unforgiving.

"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
Being executed for swearing at your parents, wtf?

 

[Plurralbles]

Sir... you are 500 years too late.

 

[TheHecatomb]

Yes. And while we're on the subject: not just the catholics are outdated.

 

[Private Custard]

No point singling out only Catholicism. All religion is outdated. Created by men as a means of controlling other men. Now irrelevant in a world based on science.

The sooner it's all gone, the better.

 

[Autohellion]

The Catholic religion has to wait until the old guard changes and brings more modern thought.
However the Pope is a integral part of the catholic religion as the line of Popes has been unbroken since the days that Christ walked the earth. He is the person with the closest connection with god and one of if not the only one who can bring about mass change.
To the man who said the parables do not extend to modern days you sir are not thinking hard enough. The messages in the parable are timeless even thought the text from which there read are antiquated. To the person above me religion en-mass causes more good deeds than bad,If it encourages people to help their fellow man even if a religion is wrong is it not good? People will always find something to quarrel about religion only helps quell that.

 

[messy]

The fact that they only just now allowed, in some cases, the use of condoms to prevent the spread of a disease that was killing and infection millions of people in Africa I'm willing to call them out dated.

That's not a good reason to do so as it doesn't show they are.

What place of power do you think they're taking? Because the only one I see them taking is one in which people voluntarily choose to listen to them and if you're going to stop that you're just being a tyrant. Nor do I see why you're trying to attribute deaths to them right here and now.

OK but once it's a given that people are going to listen, and places in Africa they are going to listen, then you have certain responsibility when you start sending them messages. And if these are messages that put human lives at danger at the cost of possible lives (and if each was truly a possible life then sex is basically mass murder.) Since a condom only kills that extra one sperm really, and out of several million sperm that's essentially nothing.

If you're going to complain about people listening, then complain only if they listen to the full message. If they're having extra marital sex, but listening to the condom part then how is it their fault people are only listening to part of the advice?

And out dated is a perfectly good reason to be against something, the medical system of the "four humours" in the body is outdated massive but we don't cure people by drugs and medicine just for the novelty of it. Because by definition something outdated, if it truly is outdated, is no longer relevant to our time so why the hell should we care about it?

That one is demonstrably outdated. The way you used it, nothing was demonstrably outdated.

OK I think I understand what your saying, this isn't an insult of your intelligence more of my comprehension, do point out if I have mis-interpreted.

After looking over it, it seems you do understand what I am arguing.

Telling people they can't use Condoms in an area rife with sexually transmitted disease due to the doctrines of something written two thousand (or less) years ago by humans (whether or not you have faith in the truth of the Bible is irrelevant it was most defiantly written by humans) is a little bit outdated. Sure some laws from 2000 year sill have some use, like do not murder etc., but the Pope still preaches that loyalty to a higher power is always more important then the preservation of human life. This to strikes me as the preservation of a patriarchal system which just oppresses large numbers of people. Also these laws are good laws regardless of whether the Pope says them or not.

First off, I would not say that it is outdated. The time in which we got the laws are irrelevant unless context around the laws suggests they were there for a specific purpose that has died out. However I see nothing of the sort. And I do not see the problem with loyalty to God being most important. That is hardly patriarchal, gender has nothing to do with it. As for oppressing people, people follow voluntarily, there is no oppression in that. Also don't understand what you're getting at with the last sentence. Yes, the laws would be good regardless of whether the Pope says them or not, but what point are you making by stating that?

A large number of people are not religious so to them the Pope is outdated. So therefore it makes sense if he can provide a figurehead of morality regardless of someone's religion, however the majority of the laws come up independently. No society, pretty much, has allowed things like murder and theft. Such things are intrinsically detrimental to what we see society as.

But not being religious doesn't mean they would see him as outdated. It means they disagreed, and would always have disagreed with Catholic doctrine regardless of the times. The doctrine includes the reasons behind the laws, and they must disagree with the reasons behind them if Catholics are still applying them but the other people are not for still applying them.

I don't get what your point is about him being a figurehead of morality regardless of religion. He isn't meant to be, he is meant to have authority in one specific religion. One specific religion that disagrees with many modern views.

Do let me know if that's not clear (I'm not trying to be patronising just I'm quite liking this debate.)

It's fairly clear, I'll ask for elaboration a needed.

I'm saying we don't need a pope to say them, therefore that role of his is no longer needed (just some people bring up the point that religion is required for morality I just thought I'd get in their first).

And the catholic church is defiantly patriarchal. The teachers they are based on were all written at a time in which women were no where near equal to men, therefore I feel everything from that period is going to be tainted by the time it is written. Also although there is no gender it is always referred to as "He" and Jesus was his "son". The most important woman in the new testament, is arguably, Mary.

Mary has a virgin birth, perhaps the perfect example of what a women should be in a patriarchal society. She should be a virgin and kept "pure" for her husband and she should only have sex to produce more children (and that is really what a patriarchal society is, just look at the stigma still today is a women is promiscuous compared to a man). And since all women are good for is producing children she should really be producing men, which she does. Even now homosexuality is looked down by them because it challenges the patriarchy by breaking up what a traditional relationship is for, the production of children.

Also a large number atheists disagree because more recent evidence, scientific evidence (which of course has all the biased attributed to any man made system of inquiry of course), disagrees with the Pope. So indirectly I think that many feel that the Pope is outdated.

 

[Sinclair Solutions]

No, religion is not outdated. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself", is that outdated? Religions, on paper, are used to teach people how to act and give them comfort. The latter point relates to MovieBob's video today, people like to think there is some kind of reason for the good/bad things that happens in the world, and a higher power controlling everything is a possible reason to them. For the first point, yes, some points are outdated. A good part of Leviticus is just ramblings and condemnations of ridiculous things (can't eat shellfish, no wool and linens at the same time). Yet, for every outdated condemnation, there is a parable on how people are supposed to treat each other equally, and to not be selfish pricks all the time.

Long story short, no. A good lesson or a source of comfort never goes out of date. Stop hating on religion.

 

[T8B95]

Anything I say here will probably get me put on probation for cultural insensitivity , but suffice it to say that I am very much an atheist. I think my view on religion can most reasonably be described in the following way: I think that people are entitled to their own beliefsw, but I don't think that they should try and force those views down another person's throat, and they should make all of their decisions based on logic and reason instead of their personal beliefs.

And on another note...I lick the Pope? What the hell?

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Well, most wars are about land and power rather than God. Religion is used as a mask for the greed of men.

That out of the way, religion is something that can change, something that should change. Right now, Catholicism has changed the wrong way and has gone backwards with beliefs. What you have to remember is that the views of the Pope and the Cardinals aren't the views of every Catholic out there.

No, it isn't. It's just being represented horribly.

 

[Blobpie]

All religions are conservative, even mine (LDS Church).
But more so for the Catholic church as that it is even more so since there is no real way it can evolve and adapt.

 

[Maze1125]

thats why people have zoos.

They used to have zoos with black people in them.

Therefore white people are, or at least were, superior to black people?

 

[Czargent Sane]

troll is trolling

I dislike the pope as he mabey not be powerful no but he is a figurehead

and religions that go to war in the past or present don't deserve respect

edit:this is my reply to faggoto

yes. you are trolling.

how about this: why dont they deserve respect? they're different people.

 

[Terminate421]

No, we just have to deal with our church calling the newest hip thing Satanic. (Thank you my religion for calling Pokemon satanic)

 

[messy]

The fact that they only just now allowed, in some cases, the use of condoms to prevent the spread of a disease that was killing and infection millions of people in Africa I'm willing to call them out dated.

That's not a good reason to do so as it doesn't show they are.

What place of power do you think they're taking? Because the only one I see them taking is one in which people voluntarily choose to listen to them and if you're going to stop that you're just being a tyrant. Nor do I see why you're trying to attribute deaths to them right here and now.

OK but once it's a given that people are going to listen, and places in Africa they are going to listen, then you have certain responsibility when you start sending them messages. And if these are messages that put human lives at danger at the cost of possible lives (and if each was truly a possible life then sex is basically mass murder.) Since a condom only kills that extra one sperm really, and out of several million sperm that's essentially nothing.

If you're going to complain about people listening, then complain only if they listen to the full message. If they're having extra marital sex, but listening to the condom part then how is it their fault people are only listening to part of the advice?

And out dated is a perfectly good reason to be against something, the medical system of the "four humours" in the body is outdated massive but we don't cure people by drugs and medicine just for the novelty of it. Because by definition something outdated, if it truly is outdated, is no longer relevant to our time so why the hell should we care about it?

That one is demonstrably outdated. The way you used it, nothing was demonstrably outdated.

OK I think I understand what your saying, this isn't an insult of your intelligence more of my comprehension, do point out if I have mis-interpreted.

After looking over it, it seems you do understand what I am arguing.

Telling people they can't use Condoms in an area rife with sexually transmitted disease due to the doctrines of something written two thousand (or less) years ago by humans (whether or not you have faith in the truth of the Bible is irrelevant it was most defiantly written by humans) is a little bit outdated. Sure some laws from 2000 year sill have some use, like do not murder etc., but the Pope still preaches that loyalty to a higher power is always more important then the preservation of human life. This to strikes me as the preservation of a patriarchal system which just oppresses large numbers of people. Also these laws are good laws regardless of whether the Pope says them or not.

First off, I would not say that it is outdated. The time in which we got the laws are irrelevant unless context around the laws suggests they were there for a specific purpose that has died out. However I see nothing of the sort. And I do not see the problem with loyalty to God being most important. That is hardly patriarchal, gender has nothing to do with it. As for oppressing people, people follow voluntarily, there is no oppression in that. Also don't understand what you're getting at with the last sentence. Yes, the laws would be good regardless of whether the Pope says them or not, but what point are you making by stating that?

A large number of people are not religious so to them the Pope is outdated. So therefore it makes sense if he can provide a figurehead of morality regardless of someone's religion, however the majority of the laws come up independently. No society, pretty much, has allowed things like murder and theft. Such things are intrinsically detrimental to what we see society as.

But not being religious doesn't mean they would see him as outdated. It means they disagreed, and would always have disagreed with Catholic doctrine regardless of the times. The doctrine includes the reasons behind the laws, and they must disagree with the reasons behind them if Catholics are still applying them but the other people are not for still applying them.

I don't get what your point is about him being a figurehead of morality regardless of religion. He isn't meant to be, he is meant to have authority in one specific religion. One specific religion that disagrees with many modern views.

Do let me know if that's not clear (I'm not trying to be patronising just I'm quite liking this debate.)

It's fairly clear, I'll ask for elaboration a needed.

I'm saying we don't need a pope to say them, therefore that role of his is no longer needed (just some people bring up the point that religion is required for morality I just thought I'd get in their first).

I'm curious, what exactly do you think the Pope does? Because as far as I am aware he does not just keep repeating those. He's also an authority on how to interpret the consequences of it etc.

And the catholic church is defiantly patriarchal. The teachers they are based on were all written at a time in which women were no where near equal to men, therefore I feel everything from that period is going to be tainted by the time it is written. Also although there is no gender it is always referred to as "He" and Jesus was his "son". The most important woman in the new testament, is arguably, Mary.

No, that doesn't make sense at all. You can level the claim of them being patriarchal, but you cannot just say that you think it will all be tainted with it. A quick examination will show that there is nothing patriarchal about loyalty to God above all else.

Mary has a virgin birth, perhaps the perfect example of what a women should be in a patriarchal society. She should be a virgin and kept "pure" for her husband and she should only have sex to produce more children (and that is really what a patriarchal society is, just look at the stigma still today is a women is promiscuous compared to a man). And since all women are good for is producing children she should really be producing men, which she does. Even now homosexuality is looked down by them because it challenges the patriarchy by breaking up what a traditional relationship is for, the production of children.

Now you're putting your spin on it. I do not recall the Catholic Church embracing that interpretation as doctrine. And I disagree with your accusations of how they perceive homosexuality and why.

Also a large number atheists disagree because more recent evidence, scientific evidence (which of course has all the biased attributed to any man made system of inquiry of course), disagrees with the Pope. So indirectly I think that many feel that the Pope is outdated.

Disagrees with the Pope on what subject? Certainly not morals since science can at best describe what people view as morality and how it got there. Hume's guillotine, that is the is-ought problem, prevents it from doing anything further and actually remaining science.

You are pledging your loyalty to a "father" who will allow you stay in his "kingdom." And being punished for even having bad thoughts, when no one can really control what pops into their heads is a very controlling statement. Even if the Bible's itself isn't intrinsically control can you see how people may use to their own ends, and I personally feel the Catholic church does it use for their own end. All the wealth they have a accumulated through the years I think stands testament to that. What use is it really? Surely no money is required to teach the Bible but the bare essentials?

With the whole morals things, it's the pope so much himself it's more people (although not you to be fair) who often say that religion is the only way people can get morals.

And it will be tainted, everything is effected it in the time it is written. The Bible was written at a very different time to the one that exist today, I understand it had to be written to be accepted in that time. That only makes logical sense, but it wasn't written with any time in mind other then the one it was so I do think it could do with some updating in places. I do apologise for using the word "taint" thought because that does have a certain emotional charge to it.

I'm not saying they openly embrace it but I can't think of another reason one would be against homosexuality, I mean it doesn't hurt anyone.

I was never suggesting that science can provide moral guidance. I hope to be a scientist one day and I would never ever provide empirical evidence for right or wrong. On that front I am in complete agreement with you.

And disagreement of morals, I think that does occur with some Atheists. Linking back to homosexuality and the view that certain positions in the church cannot be held by women.