Pope Francis Says the Ban on Women Priests Will Last Forever
86 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Svinnik;51296559]people like you are why it's impossible to actually discuss religious issues on FP because you insist on being one of those smug atheists who hate everything that's related to religion instead of actually being willing to see the POV of the religious.
comments like these should be bannable imo[/QUOTE]
Yet people can post sarcastic snipes at Donald Trump and his supporters, foreign presidents, climate skeptics and all that shit just fine without anyone complaining. How come?
[QUOTE=Chrille;51296877]Yet people can post sarcastic snipes at Donald Trump and his supporters, foreign presidents, climate skeptics and all that shit just fine without anyone complaining. How come?[/QUOTE]
cuz respecting people's religion is what all the grown ups do
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51296767]the "Reddit Atheism" as I like to call it that seems to propagate in most of these decisions anywhere on the net is nothing but a way of holding smug superiority for a lot of people.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you.
I recently stopped calling myself an atheist because people like those "reddit atheists" have attached so much negativity to the word "atheism" to the extent where saying that I'm an atheist makes people assume a few things about me that are untrue:
- They assume that I believe that there is no god, which is not true; the lack of belief in a god does not imply the belief that there is no god.
- They assume that all atheists hate [I]religious people[/I]. This is untrue because I dislike religion, but not religious people.
- They assume that I go around debating people about religion. This is untrue because I rarely mention my irreligious views to anyone unless they're close friends.
Now I usually prefer not to give myself any labels, but I sometimes call myself an "agnostic" because I feel it suits my views the best.
Actually, labeling yourself, in general, is a bad idea; when you give yourself a vague label like "atheist", people will assume that you have all the negative attributes associated with that word, or any other label for that matter.
I think it's better if you just explain your view to someone if they really want to know what it is.
I hope that one day these "reddit atheists" realize that continuously shaming religious people is not the way you convince them to rethink their beliefs.
[QUOTE=Reflex F.N.;51296946]I agree with you.
I recently stopped calling myself an atheist because people like those "reddit atheists" have attached so much negativity to the word "atheism" to the extent where saying that I'm an atheist makes people assume a few things about me that are untrue:
- They assume that I believe that there is no god, which is not true; the lack of belief in a god does not imply the belief that there is no god.
- They assume that all atheists hate [I]religious people[/I]. This is untrue because I dislike religion, but not religious people.
- They assume that I go around debating people about religion. This is untrue because I rarely mention my irreligious views to anyone unless they're close friends.
Now I usually prefer not to give myself any labels, but I sometimes call myself an "agnostic" because I feel it suits my views the best.
I wish I could continue calling myself an atheist without people making all of these untrue assumptions about me, but unfortunately it has become hard to do this thanks to smug internet atheists. :(
I hope that one day these "reddit atheists" realize that continuously shaming religious people is not the way you convince them to rethink their beliefs.[/QUOTE]
I still just use the term for myself if anyone asks. It doesn't really help the stigma for people to abandon the term for a different term that actually doesn't apply to them. Also the new atheist trend has died down quite a bit so there's that too.
Nothing wrong with attaching a label to oneself if it fits. If someone pre-judges you, that's their loss and fault.
[QUOTE=Reflex F.N.;51296946]They assume that I believe that there is no god, which is not true; the lack of belief in a god does not imply the belief that there is no god.[/QUOTE]
Then you're an agnostic, atheism is the latter.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51297030]Then you're an agnostic, atheism is the latter.[/QUOTE]I always thought that atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. The lack of belief in a deity does not imply the belief that there is no deity.
Well, I may be wrong, though, but theism means the belief in a deity. When 'a' precedes a word, it negates it. So atheism should mean not believing in a deity. Again I may be wrong; that is one of the reasons I do not label myself; I don't want to confuse people and I also don't want to be using a label incorrectly.
When Googling "what does atheism mean", I got this:
[QUOTE]disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51297021]I still just use the term for myself if anyone asks. It doesn't really help the stigma for people to abandon the term for a different term that actually doesn't apply to them. Also the new atheist trend has died down quite a bit so there's that too.
Nothing wrong with attaching a label to oneself if it fits. If someone pre-judges you, that's their loss and fault.[/QUOTE]
You have a point.
Also, I agree that new atheism has died down recently, but the stigma still exists.
I personally don't want to cause myself any social problems from being misunderstood because of using a word.
In real life, I prefer not to talk about religion at all, and I usually avoid the topic as much as I can, but when someone really wants to know, I prefer to explain my point of view without using any label; it would make the person I'm talking to listen to me more clearly; rather than make assumptions about me just from a word.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51297030]Then you're an agnostic, atheism is the latter.[/QUOTE]
Agnosticism describes the strength of a given point of view, not the actual nature of the view itself. If someone calls themselves an agnostic, a reasonable response would be "you're an agnostic [i]what?[/i]" Disclaimer: this definition is in no way set in stone, but IMO it's the only useful one, given that people who simply call themselves "agnostics" are almost always atheists.
[img]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MDZPs8ROJXE/TNx7UFqbaII/AAAAAAAAB9M/XDfxPwyBVpA/s1600/Gnostic_Agnostic_Atheist.png[/img]
If we're talking solely about atheists, then the categories more or less consist of:
[b]Agnostic Atheist[/b]: I don't believe in any god, even a non-specific one, but I don't feel comfortable assuming non-existence
[b]Regular 'Ol Atheist[/b]: I don't believe in any god, and I can safely assume non-existence until I see evidence to the contrary, because non-existence is the default point of view
[b]Gnostic Atheist[/b]: God doesn't exist, and I 100% know this because I'm a small child and the adults in my life are all atheists, or I [i]was[/i] that child and have never given any consideration to the concept of gods
[QUOTE=_Axel;51297030]Then you're an agnostic, atheism is the latter.[/QUOTE]
It's past Halloween, why is this zombie argument being resurrected?
[QUOTE=Benstokes;51297174]Agnosticism describes the strength of a given point of view, not the actual nature of the view itself. If someone calls themselves an agnostic, a reasonable response would be "you're an agnostic [i]what?[/i]" Disclaimer: this definition is in no way set in stone, but IMO it's the only useful one, given that people who simply call themselves "agnostics" are almost always atheists.[/QUOTE]
it isn't impossible to be truly agnostic. for instance, i have no idea if a god, gods, or godlike entities exist or do not exist and as such i do not believe or disbelieve in them. i think both possibilities are equally likely.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;51296559]people like you are why it's impossible to actually discuss religious issues on FP because you insist on being one of those smug atheists who hate everything that's related to religion instead of actually being willing to see the POV of the religious.
comments like these should be bannable imo[/QUOTE]
I'm inclined to agree. I'm not religious in the slightest, but I recognize that religion has huge cultural significance, and can be a force for a lot of good. While I do agree that most major world religions are have some significant streaks of outdated and regressive beliefs, I believe the solution to that is the continued social and cultural reform of those religions, not something as absurd as outlawing them.
I always value discussions relating to religion that are focused on how we, as a society, can work towards helping to reform the regressive aspects rather than just moaning about how bad and stupid and evil the religion is for having them in the first place.
Progressive religious groups can be quite lovely. Progressive Islam, progressive Christianity, they're still rooted in faith, in family, but they recognize that the world is a changing place, and that the path to God is not in fighting to preserve archaic mindsets, but in the simple service of their fellow man through volunteering, charity, outreach programs, support groups, self acceptance, and respect of differing perspectives.
it really does seem like an arbitrary interpritation of scripture. jesus also used women to spread the word if you will, and arguably at more important events than men such as the women who discovered that he had risen from his tomb. they, not the apostles, brought the word that he was risen.
A woman can never be a priest
Probably because they're called priestesses
[QUOTE=Kylel999;51297934]A woman can never be a priest
Probably because they're called priestesses[/QUOTE]
lol i hate that shit
[editline]3rd November 2016[/editline]
whats da point?
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51297333]it isn't impossible to be truly agnostic. for instance, i have no idea if a god, gods, or godlike entities exist or do not exist and as such i do not believe or disbelieve in them. i think both possibilities are equally likely.[/QUOTE]
I suppose that's fair enough.
I'm tempted to argue that most (if not all) people who hold that view are functionally atheists; that argument would probably involve questions like "do you live your life as if there were a god, or as if there is not?" or maybe "do you [i]really[/i] not have a mental stance on the existence of unknowns, from gods to unicorns on the dark side of the moon? Are you really unable to make assumptions based on currently available evidence?"
That said, I'll be the first to admit that I can't know what's going on in your head. Maybe you truly are that one-in-a-million person who makes absolutely no assumptions about the existence of things that are technically possible but completely unobserved... Or maybe you [i]do[/i] make those assumptions, but for some reason are unwilling or incapable to extend them to deities. I don't know your story, so yeah.
Still, though, I don't think that's a concrete or common enough stance to name a point of view after it. The vast, vast majority of "agnostics," when asked to describe their position, turn out to be agnostic atheists by definition.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51296522]Not unexpected, but some day the church might adapt its policy to change this.[/QUOTE]
Alot of faiths I know of forbid women from being priests or the equivalent. The reason is because menstrual blood (exposed blood) can lead to complications to the individual (female) while working with spirits. God being one of these spirits. The other is while working with said forces, could have complications on an unborn child.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51298781]Alot of faiths I know of forbid women from being priests or the equivalent. The reason is because menstrual blood (exposed blood) can lead to complications to the individual (female) while working with spirits. God being one of these spirits. The other is while working with said forces, could have complications on an unborn child.[/QUOTE]
So no real reason that actually forbids women from becoming religious figures
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51297446]
Progressive religious groups can be quite lovely. Progressive Islam, progressive Christianity, they're still rooted in faith, in family, but they recognize that the world is a changing place, and that the path to God is not in fighting to preserve archaic mindsets, but in the simple service of their fellow man through volunteering, charity, outreach programs, support groups, self acceptance, and respect of differing perspectives.[/QUOTE]
Progressive religious groups are a myth, because what you yourself describe is really an exodus away from religion towards individual spirituality, shared open community and charity. You've made the "religion" progressive by throwing away the religion part.
[QUOTE=xagnu;51298937]Progressive religious groups are a myth, because what you yourself describe is really an exodus away from religion towards individual spirituality, shared open community and charity. You've made the "religion" progressive by throwing away the religion part.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and when you tell that line of nonlogic to conservative people, they will see even less reason to het with the times.
Thank you for making the world a better place
[QUOTE=Reflex F.N.;51296946]I agree with you.
I recently stopped calling myself an atheist because people like those "reddit atheists" have attached so much negativity to the word "atheism" to the extent where saying that I'm an atheist makes people assume a few things about me that are untrue:
[/QUOTE]
If you're truly an atheist (as has been defined earlier in the thread) then what some loud neckbeards do shouldn't change your non-belief, and if you really disagree with the title because of it, go out and try to change the perception.
[Editline]later[/editline]
The reason atheists are loud about it is a complex issue, but in large part it is good, because it lets others who doubt faith know they aren't alone, or "led astray".
[QUOTE=da space core;51299066]Yeah, and when you tell that line of nonlogic to conservative people, they will see even less reason to het with the times.
Thank you for making the world a better place[/QUOTE]
How is that nonlogic? It's a totally valid point, if you start throwing away core tenants then you're pretty much throwing the religion part away.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51297446]
Progressive religious groups can be quite lovely. Progressive Islam, progressive Christianity, they're still rooted in faith, in family, but they recognize that the world is a changing place, and that the path to God is not in fighting to preserve archaic mindsets, but in the simple service of their fellow man through volunteering, charity, outreach programs, support groups, self acceptance, and respect of differing perspectives.[/QUOTE]
Religion is inherently dogmatic, which by its nature means it resists progress.
[Editline] rip[/editline]
My automerge.
French priests shouldn't be allowed either, because Jesus didn't have French apostles iirc
[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;51296755]"lol ban all priests"
"FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING PRICK. COMMENTS LIKE YOURS SHOULD BE BANNED"
calm down lads[/QUOTE]
My reaction to that was to imagine humans being banned from being priests and all priests were dogs
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51299132]How is that nonlogic? It's a totally valid point, if you start throwing away core tenants then you're pretty much throwing the religion part away.[/QUOTE]
You're conflating religion and organized religion.
[QUOTE=plunger435;51299237]You're conflating religion and organized religion.[/QUOTE]
Depends on your definition of religion. If you define religion simply as a belief in and worship of some supernatural entity, then sure, that doesn't make much sense. An equally valid definition of religion is as a [i]system[/i] of belief and worship. In which case what he said makes sense, so that's presumably what he meant.
[QUOTE=da space core;51299066]Yeah, and when you tell that line of nonlogic to conservative people, they will see even less reason to het with the times.
Thank you for making the world a better place[/QUOTE]
If what you're saying made even the slightest bit of sense, we wouldn't live in a world where Donald Trump is a presidential candidate with a notable voter base. Conservatives don't care about getting with the times, that's why they're conservatives.
The disparity among them is how far they'll go to achieve their beliefs, not the investment in the belief itself.
If anything the truth is the complete opposite, conservatives benefit from and exert influence through the moderates/progressives. Similar concept to the Overton window.
[QUOTE=elowin;51299460]Depends on your definition of religion. If youdefine religion simply as a belief in and worship of some supernatural entity, then sure, that doesn't make much sense. An equally valid definition of religion is as a [i]system[/i] of belief and worship. In which case what he said makes sense, so that's presumably what he meant.[/QUOTE]
Precisely this. Religion on an individual level is a misnomer, which is why I prefer to describe it as "spirituality", as it's not shared beyond an implicit belief in something inherently incapable of being proven.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51297446]I'm inclined to agree. I'm not religious in the slightest, but I recognize that religion has huge cultural significance, and can be a force for a lot of good. While I do agree that most major world religions are have some significant streaks of outdated and regressive beliefs, I believe the solution to that is the continued social and cultural reform of those religions, not something as absurd as outlawing them.
I always value discussions relating to religion that are focused on how we, as a society, can work towards helping to reform the regressive aspects rather than just moaning about how bad and stupid and evil the religion is for having them in the first place.
Progressive religious groups can be quite lovely. Progressive Islam, progressive Christianity, they're still rooted in faith, in family, but they recognize that the world is a changing place, and that the path to God is not in fighting to preserve archaic mindsets, but in the simple service of their fellow man through volunteering, charity, outreach programs, support groups, self acceptance, and respect of differing perspectives.[/QUOTE]
That's nice and all, but I can never help but think every progressive reform made by a religion is just another step in a millennia-long backpedaling marathon. And somewhere along the way one as to ask that if there's almost nothing that can't be reinterpreted in the effort to keep pace with progress, then what purpose does it server than being a vestigial cultural organ.
[quote]"Although the Pope has repeatedly denied women would be permitted in the clergy, his creation of a commission to discuss whether women could serve as deacons in May caused some to question his intentions. Francis has endured flak from Catholic traditionalists."[/quote]
In context, this sounds less like issuing an infallible doctrine and more like reassuring older Catholics.
Also it kinda sounds like the journalist is trying to get the pope to say something sensational.
[quote]“It was given by St. John Paul II, and this remains,” Francis said.
“Really?” asked the journalist. “Never?”[/quote]
But that's just my reading into it.
Judaic roots still showing.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;51296559]people like you are why it's impossible to actually discuss religious issues on FP because you insist on being one of those smug atheists who hate everything that's related to religion instead of actually being willing to see the POV of the religious.
comments like these should be bannable imo[/QUOTE]
THANK YOU!
Also I love it when people bring up the Crusades as something that happened nearly a thousand years ago as something relevant today. Don't put this blame on modern Christians and Catholics; we didn't do it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.