Should people be religious?

[PIBby]

I don't think I'd say the Catholic Church is fucked up, though. I think it's good that we base what we pratice mostly on traditions, otherwise every church, whether it's a Catholic Church, Baptist church, or whatever, they'd all be the same, and that wouldn't be fun. Everyone would be . . . one religion.

[Grakthis]

I don't think I'd say the Catholic Church is fucked up, though. I think it's good that we base what we pratice mostly on traditions, otherwise every church, whether it's a Catholic Church, Baptist church, or whatever, they'd all be the same, and that wouldn't be fun. Everyone would be . . . one religion.

true.  Personally, the only form of religion I support is one that says "do what is right" and lets everyone work out the details for themselves.

I am opposed to the idea of another person (and frankly, I believe that's all the pope is, because no where in scripture does it say otherwise) telling me what I have to do to make it to heaven.

Which is the largest reason why im opposed to every organize religion I've ever studied.
---Andrew

[Gently realistic]

I've read your more than thoroughly stated story, and agree with you. I find a bit useless to reply in an equally humungous post, so I'll just say I think it's great you've given it this much thought. I'm opposed to any form of organization that sees their opinions and ideologies as being the only right one... I believe tolerance in general is a thing that should be treasured a bit more often. every single person should be granted his/her god, and be respected for whatever choice is made. My god is not the God worshipped by Christians... It's just the idea of having a certain abstract thing to hold on to, that's sufficient for me.

[TSE]

true.  Personally, the only form of religion I support is one that says "do what is right" and lets everyone work out the details for themselves.

I am opposed to the idea of another person (and frankly, I believe that's all the pope is, because no where in scripture does it say otherwise) telling me what I have to do to make it to heaven.

Which is the largest reason why im opposed to every organize religion I've ever studied.
---Andrew

No where in scripture . . .
No where in scripture . . .
No where in scripture . . .
No where in scripture . . .

And what scripture are we talking about?   Weren't there many books that could  have become part of the Bible?  Yes.  I wouldn't venture to say you've read all of them.  So who's judement are we trusting by saying that those books you find in your Bible are canon?  Another person's?  The ones in the canon are said to be insipred by God.  How do we know?   What if you've been looking in the wrong scripture the whole time?

hmmmmm

[PIBby]

true.  Personally, the only form of religion I support is one that says "do what is right" and lets everyone work out the details for themselves.

I am opposed to the idea of another person (and frankly, I believe that's all the pope is, because no where in scripture does it say otherwise) telling me what I have to do to make it to heaven.

Which is the largest reason why im opposed to every organize religion I've ever studied.
---Andrew

One of the commandments is 'Honor thy Father and thy Mother', which has brought me to believe the reason we, as Catholics, are supposed to listen and obey the Pope is because he is, one of our fathers. The commandment doesn't say 'Honor your biological Father and Mother; The ones who physically created you and brought you to Earth'. See, we refer to our priest as Father, and . . . the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church (who is alive), and he is the head priest, thus he's to be addressed as Father. And we've got to obey him. That's just what I've begun to belive, if you all get what I'm saying.

[Will]

One of the commandments is 'Honor thy Father and thy Mother', which has brought me to believe the reason we, as Catholics, are supposed to listen and obey the Pope is because he is, one of our fathers. The commandment doesn't say 'Honor your biological Father and Mother; The ones who physically created you and brought you to Earth'. See, we refer to our priest as Father, and . . . the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church (who is alive), and he is the head priest, thus he's to be addressed as Father. And we've got to obey him. That's just what I've begun to belive, if you all get what I'm saying.

Well, that is unbiblical tradition rearing it's ugly head again. Where in the Bible does it say religious leaders are your parents? The only person that is refered to in the Bible as father (excepting the normal secular usage) is God himself. They may call themselves "fathers," but such a title has orgins solely in church tradition.

If you read the Bible, the leaders were refered to as "brothers," not "fathers."

There are lots of things like that. Another thing is the worship of Mary as a virgin. I'm not going to get into the "mother of heaven" part because I don't even know where that comes from.

I still don't get why they take the view that Mary was a virgin all her life. Matt 13:55-56 is pretty clear to me. "Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judus? Aren't all his sisters with us?" Could anyone familiar with Catholic doctrine explain what the Catholic church has to say about this verse? I have heard people say that Aramaic, the civil language of the Jews at the time, the word "braw" means both brother and cousin and "beltha" means sister and cousin. That doesn't make sense because Matthew would have known if they were cousins or not and he used the word "adelphos" for brothers and "adelphe" for sisters, rather than "suggenes" which is cousins.

I guess it is possible that the kids were with a concubine and Mary never did lose her virginity. Still doesn't make sense for more than one kid becaude of the visit of the angel to Joseph. He probably wouldn't cheat after that like he would before when Mary got pregant and it couldn't be by him.

Another example of Catholic tradition that I don't get at all is the doctrine of Papal infallability. Have they forgotten the rules of John XII and Stephen VII? What of Rodrigo Borgia (aka Pope Alexander VI)? Those men were not men of God. They were in the office for the political power. I'm sorry, people like them have forever ruined any argument for Papal infallabilty. Borgia held Palpal orgies in the Vatican for crying out loud! I might add that they often included his illegitmate daughter.

Meh... sorry to all you Catholics out there. I don't mean to ridicule your faith or anything, but I seriously don't understand many of the central tenants of the Catholic church. Many of them make absolutely no sense to me.

[PIBby]

What does it matter if it's tradition? I'm talking about the CATHOLIC CHURCH, and as a sign of respect, we address our priests as Father; They are the ones who are capable of having God, Himself, bless the host, I don't see WHY people have a problem with it. I'm sure The Church has a reason to do the things they do, the councils weren't full of idiots.

The End

[Will]

They are the ones who are capable of having God, Himself, bless the host

Please ignore my Protestant ignorance. What do you mean by that?

[PIBby]

The Host = The Body of Christ = The Bread we have at Mass (Church)

The only reason with that whole Papal infallibility thing is because then they believed in that divine right bullshit, and random people would say God told them that they should be the ruler. The people of the city (or country) woudn't disagree because they feared that if this guy was telling the truth, they'd go to hell for not believing in what God said. So, if you were a leader, you were Catholic, most of the time. Yeah. And really, no one else could have ruled, because most people were Catholic back in the day (before the Protestant Reformation, and Catholic Counter-Reformation) and you couldn't disagree with the Pope 'cause he was the man. The rulers of these little places (who were rulers STRICTLY because of divine rights), told the Pope what was going on, and from there the Pope ruled. So, technically, the Pope only told the people what to do, he didn't make decisions. He ruled the people who ruled the cities and town and vllages and whatnot, thus, he ruled the cities and towns and villages and whatnot.

Sorry if it doens't make any sense, I can't really put it into words.

[Grakthis]

No where in scripture . . .
No where in scripture . . .
No where in scripture . . .
No where in scripture . . .

And what scripture are we talking about?   Weren't there many books that could  have become part of the Bible?  Yes.  I wouldn't venture to say you've read all of them.  So who's judement are we trusting by saying that those books you find in your Bible are canon?  Another person's?  The ones in the canon are said to be insipred by God.  How do we know?   What if you've been looking in the wrong scripture the whole time?

hmmmmm

I dont know if you were trying to agree with me or not.... but you just did.

I agree, you can't really trust HALF of the "holy" books you read.  Because a lot of them were written with political aspirations.

The point I was making is that I don't believe things organized religion tells me.  I've read or stuided LOTS of the various scriputres (Bagavad-Ghita, Koran, Torah, Pieces of the Book of Mormon, Old Testament, New Testament etc etc) and I take a little bit from each one but I dont take any of them to be absolute truth.

The point I was making about the Pope is that the ONLY reason we decided that the Pope gets to speak for God is because PEOPLE decided that the Pope would speak for God.  God never said it.

There is a line in the new Testament about the Peter's role as the first Pope and no where does it say hes a decision maker in matters of what we should believe.
---Andrew

[Grakthis]

One of the commandments is 'Honor thy Father and thy Mother', which has brought me to believe the reason we, as Catholics, are supposed to listen and obey the Pope is because he is, one of our fathers. The commandment doesn't say 'Honor your biological Father and Mother; The ones who physically created you and brought you to Earth'. See, we refer to our priest as Father, and . . . the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church (who is alive), and he is the head priest, thus he's to be addressed as Father. And we've got to obey him. That's just what I've begun to belive, if you all get what I'm saying.

Oh come on, pibbs.  Thats a reach if I ever heard one.  If you have to stretch THAT far to justify your religious beliefs then thats depressing.

Also, dont forget that "mother and father" is a translation and who knows if it has the same flexible meaning in hebrew/latin (depending on which translation you are reading).
---Andrew

[Grakthis]

I still don't get why they take the view that Mary was a virgin all her life. Matt 13:55-56 is pretty clear to me. "Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judus? Aren't all his sisters with us?" Could anyone familiar with Catholic doctrine explain what the Catholic church has to say about this verse? I have heard people say that Aramaic, the civil language of the Jews at the time, the word "braw" means both brother and cousin and "beltha" means sister and cousin. That doesn't make sense because Matthew would have known if they were cousins or not and he used the word "adelphos" for brothers and "adelphe" for sisters, rather than "suggenes" which is cousins.

Hey Dumbass.  I dont know ANT Catholic PERSON, TRADITION or BELIEF that says Mary DIED a virgin.  They just say she was a virgin when she had Jesus.  This is you just making bad assumptions.  I was always taught in catholic school that Mary had children after Jesus.

Another example of Catholic tradition that I don't get at all is the doctrine of Papal infallability. Have they forgotten the rules of John XII and Stephen VII? What of Rodrigo Borgia (aka Pope Alexander VI)? Those men were not men of God. They were in the office for the political power. I'm sorry, people like them have forever ruined any argument for Papal infallabilty. Borgia held Palpal orgies in the Vatican for crying out loud! I might add that they often included his illegitmate daughter.

Ok well.. I agree on this one.  Except to say that Borgia and his like were political figures and one could argue that they broke the chain of true "Popes".

Either way, you're still a dumbass.
---Andrew

[Grakthis]

The Host = The Body of Christ = The Bread we have at Mass (Church)

The only reason with that whole Papal infallibility thing is because then they believed in that divine right bullshit, and random people would say God told them that they should be the ruler. The people of the city (or country) woudn't disagree because they feared that if this guy was telling the truth, they'd go to hell for not believing in what God said. So, if you were a leader, you were Catholic, most of the time. Yeah. And really, no one else could have ruled, because most people were Catholic back in the day (before the Protestant Reformation, and Catholic Counter-Reformation) and you couldn't disagree with the Pope 'cause he was the man. The rulers of these little places (who were rulers STRICTLY because of divine rights), told the Pope what was going on, and from there the Pope ruled. So, technically, the Pope only told the people what to do, he didn't make decisions. He ruled the people who ruled the cities and town and vllages and whatnot, thus, he ruled the cities and towns and villages and whatnot.
quote]

Pibbs..... the Divine Right of Kings and Papal Infalibility are compeltely unrelated.  Papal infalibility says that the Pope is the mouthpiece of God and will speak in Gods name from time to time.  And when he does this, he will ALWAYS be right and incapable of making a mistake.

Sorry.
---Andrew

[PIBby]

Mary never died, whoever said that. People have tried to get me to believe it, but she never did. She ascended ino heaven.

Andrew, I'm making a point with the divine right stuff. The kings who did say God chose them as leaders did obey the Pope. And that's how the Pope was a political leader, kings told him what was going on an suggested what to do about it. The Pope wasn't just there as, like, president of Europe; Western Europe after the Reformation.

And how is it ''depressing'' that that's what I think? It's not a stretch at all. Everything's there, what does it matter to anyone if I do or don't believe in the authority of the Pope, anyway?

[Will]

Hey Dumbass.  I dont know ANT Catholic PERSON, TRADITION or BELIEF that says Mary DIED a virgin.  They just say she was a virgin when she had Jesus.  This is you just making bad assumptions.  I was always taught in catholic school that Mary had children after Jesus.

I guess that isn't Catholic doctrine then. I've talked to various Catholics and most of them have expressed this view. But then again, many people don't know the beliefs of their own church and this could be another example of this.

Either way, you're still a dumbass.

Me a dumbass? Meh, you caught me.  :wink: