[quote]“The number of priests is going down beautifully,” he said.[/quote]
Wow, what an asshole thing to say. Sure some people have faith and there's reasons for it, and some of them don't have a problem with someone's sexuality. I don't see why there's a big deal over someone's faith.
I honestly don't see a problem with people calling themselves Catholic even if they aren't really. Judge people on their actions and ideals not whatever label they have stuck on themselves. I can understand Dawkin's point in this but telling people that they aren't what they think they are just gives off a pushy atheist asshole vibe to me.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;36257381]I honestly don't see a problem with people calling themselves Catholic even if they aren't really.[/QUOTE]
the problem is that the catholic institution is a really horrible thing. that has nothing to do with people calling themselves catholic, but it does give the catholic institution the authority to continue. that's a bad thing, and religious people could really do better without it.
[QUOTE=download;36256957]I personally think its silly when a person of any faith claims to be of a particular faith, but doesn't follow its rules of teachings. If you don't care that much about your faith, then it obviously doesn't matter to you, and you should stop saying you are[/QUOTE]
Thing is that many things are left for individual interpretation. That's the reason why for example Jehova's witnesses can be batshit crazy compared to normal christians even though they are based around the same deity and same bible.
Plenty of stuff is only figurative, and it depends on how literally you take it. Many things are left on interpretation between parish to parish, some are left on individuals, at least where I am myself.
I myself find my belief too incompatible with christianity to call myself a christian, but I understand enough to see Dawkins's as nonsense.
You don't have to have Chelsea sticker on your car AND their dress AND their flag out of window to call yourself a Chelsea fan.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;36257381]I honestly don't see a problem with people calling themselves Catholic even if they aren't really. Judge people on their actions and ideals not whatever label they have stuck on themselves. I can understand Dawkin's point in this but telling people that they aren't what they think they are just gives off a pushy atheist asshole vibe to me.[/QUOTE]
If I call myself a pianist, but I never play piano because I'm really bad at it and I never actually do it. People would go "pff, you're not a pianist. You're a tosser."
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;36257469]Thing is that many things are left for individual interpretation. That's the reason why for example Jehova's witnesses can be batshit crazy compared to normal christians even though they are based around the same deity and same bible.
Plenty of stuff is only figurative, and it depends on how literally you take it. Many things are left on interpretation between parish to parish, some are left on individuals, at least where I am myself.
I myself find my belief too incompatible with christianity to call myself a christian, but I understand enough to see Dawkins's as nonsense.
You don't have to have Chelsea sticker on your car AND their dress AND their flag out of window to call yourself a Chelsea fan.[/QUOTE]
i find it funny that being a fan of chelsea and worshiping jesus christ are equal actions in your mind
The issue is that [I]Roman Catholicism[/I] has very well defined tenants. I don't care what you say, if you don't follow the tenants of Roman Catholicism, you aren't a Roman Catholic. End of story.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;36257496]i find it funny that being a fan of chelsea and worshiping jesus christ are equal actions in your mind
The issue is that [I]Roman Catholicism[/I] has very well defined tenants. I don't care what you say, if you don't follow the tenants of Roman Catholicism, you aren't a Roman Catholic. End of story.[/QUOTE]
That's wrong, because Roman Catholic Church and the person in question are the only one to have a say in that.
Church has mechanisms for disallowing people from it's rows, but even people who murder, even if deliberately, who thus break one of the commandments, are not automatically excluded from the church. They are sinners, they don't obey the rules, yadda yadda, but there's no "you are not a catholic anymore".
There's no "you will do this and believe this or you are not a catholic" written anywhere. Some question the quality of your faith, but unless you are excommunicated or decide otherwise yourself, you are a christian, and if you feel so part of Roman Catholic Church.
The only two parties involved in the decisive process are the Church and the person. Your, or Dawkins's opinion has absolutely nil value in this case, because nobody has to give a shit.
All religion should be put into one; and then the famine, diseases and the senseless dying is done.
[QUOTE=thisispain;36257426]the problem is that the catholic institution is a really horrible thing. that has nothing to do with people calling themselves catholic, but it does give the catholic institution the authority to continue. that's a bad thing, and religious people could really do better without it.[/QUOTE]
I agree that the catholic church has done some pretty shitty things but having a go at the people who are only catholic by name won't stop them and it just gives the actual ones reason to believe that the filthy godless atheist scum are trying to convert them to their satanistic ways.
It's like trying to kill a bear by shaving it. Sure it might look smaller afterwards and people might not take it as seriously but it's still a bear and you have done very little to stop what makes it so dangerous. If anything you've just pissed it off.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;36257547]All religion should be put into one; and then the famine, diseases and the senseless dying is done.[/QUOTE]
People kill each other already over shit without religion being involved, religion is used as an excuse at times, but they'd still kill otherwise.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;36257547]All religion should be put into one; and then the famine, diseases and the senseless dying is done.[/QUOTE]
but watcha gonna do about all those wars and deaths not fueled by religion, chief? and how does there being one fuckhuge church change the amount of people with diseases
-snop-
[QUOTE=thisispain;36257091]as long as you don't do anything to hurt or hurl the country back to the middle ages, who cares?
the catholic institution should be dismantled and the first step to that is for christians to realize that they don't need to be catholic in order to be christian.[/QUOTE]
Shit thisispain how many schisms did you miss? Plenty of Christians believe the Catholic church is unnecessary.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;36257547]All religion should be put into one; and then the famine, diseases and the senseless dying is done.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d0/Futurama_-_First_Amalgamated_Church.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;36257547]All religion should be put into one; and then the famine, diseases and the senseless dying is done.[/QUOTE]
are you stupid? do you seriously think religion is the only thing causing those? it's in human nature to be massive dicks, and I see no way that war could stop. humans will war with aliens, themselves, etc.
If I recall, transubstantiation involves the symbolic "transformation" of bread and wine into Jesus' flesh and blood without the change in appearance.
Towards my Christian backround, the Last Supper was merely a remembrance of Jesus and his death as it has been written in the Bible
[QUOTE=bunnyspy1;36258989]it's in human nature to be massive dicks[/QUOTE]
Or, you know, people are the product of their surroundings and upbringing, and religion, which is based on the belief and worship of something for which there is no proof, can be seen as promoting negative attitudes and actions in people.
[QUOTE=Patriarch;36259106]Or, you know, people are the product of their surroundings and upbringing, and religion, which is based on the belief and worship of something for which there is no proof, can be seen as promoting negative attitudes and actions in people.[/QUOTE]
Your username rings of irony.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;36257469]
You don't have to have Chelsea sticker on your car AND their dress AND their flag out of window to call yourself a Chelsea fan.[/QUOTE]
How is liking a football team related to following a cult?
Sounds reasonable. You either subscribe to most of the beliefs and teachings, and are a Catholic, or don't and aren't.
[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;36256984]I consider myself a progressive Christian and I believe the Vatican can go suck it (assuming that's what "the church" is in this article), and I don't believe in transubstantiation. That doesn't not make me a Roman Catholic though, because although I think Richard Dawkin's a tight guy, do things really need to be that black and white?
I dunno, maybe I'm missing something Mr. Dawkin's trying to say.[/QUOTE]
You don't support the vatican, but you claim to be a Roman Catholic, I hate to dissapoint you but you're a protestant, mate.
I'm repping the church btw. (I don't believe its a bad institution, for one it provides a huge amount of charity and aid across the world with charities like CAFOD)
[editline]9th June 2012[/editline]
Also why does Dawkins see in such black and white terms, 'RELIGION OR REASON' thats never been the case for the catholic church.
[QUOTE=thisispain;36257091]as long as you don't do anything to hurt or hurl the country back to the middle ages, who cares?
the catholic institution should be dismantled and the first step to that is for christians to realize that they don't need to be catholic in order to be christian.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members]Catholics only make up about half of all Christians.[/url]
I don't get why the US doesn't invade the Vatican. It's a dictatorship with lots of money (and child molesters, but they're not worth much).
[QUOTE=sp00ks;36264768]I don't get why the US doesn't invade the Vatican. It's a dictatorship with lots of money (and child molesters, but they're not worth much).[/QUOTE]
They don't have oil and it would be global suicide to invade the sacred capitol of one of the largest religions in the world.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;36264860]They don't have oil [del]and it would be global suicide to invade the sacred capitol of one of the largest religions in the world.[/del][/QUOTE]
Fixed that for you.
I considered putting in a "Republicans would veto a war with the Vatican because they're good Christians," but then I remembered that Protestants tend to not like Catholics, or at least it's been that way for a long while.
I don't really know if the Republicans would defend the Vatican or not. I mean, yeah, they're Christians, but they're also [b]Catholics[/b]. :v:
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;36265310]Fixed that for you.
I considered putting in a "Republicans would veto a war with the Vatican because they're good Christians," but then I remembered that Protestants tend to not like Catholics, or at least it's been that way for a long while.
I don't really know if the Republicans would defend the Vatican or not. I mean, yeah, they're Christians, but they're also [B]Catholics[/B]. :v:[/QUOTE]
They would sooner defend catholics than secularists.
In the US most christians denominations have used the umbrella term Christian to describe themselves rather than calling themselves Lutherens, Methodists, Catholics, etc.
[editline]9th June 2012[/editline]
And I think Dawkins is doing this because of his recent survey where he found that only like 40% of the people who marked themselves as Christian on the UK census actually followed that religion.
The purpose of that survey was to show that just because 60% of Britons claimed to be Christian the Parliament shouldn't pass religious laws because only 40% of that 60% actually believed it.
For example, the UK parliament would propose a bill like banning gay marriage, and their justification for it would be that 70% of the country was Christian, so they knew 70% of the country would support that law. But according to Dawkins's findings, that's not the case.
[editline]9th June 2012[/editline]
[URL]http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644941-rdfrs-uk-ipsos-mori-poll-1-how-religious-are-uk-christians[/URL]
[QUOTE=Patriarch;36259106]Or, you know, people are the product of their surroundings and upbringing, and religion, which is based on the belief and worship of something for which there is no proof, can be seen as promoting negative attitudes and actions in people.[/QUOTE]
Or, you know, people are just massive dicks.
[QUOTE=thisispain;36257099]so you're saying buddhism isn't a religion because they don't go to church or believe in god...[/QUOTE]
I was talking about Christianity
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
