Poll: are the catholics outdated?

[ShaqLevick]

I can't even stress how wrong religion is on a strictly moral basis, on a scientific basis I just don't even...

 

[Blatherscythe]

Do away with all religious organizations, keep the religions themselves if you really need to, but get rid of the fucking institutions. They cause no fucking end of trouble in this damn world, they hold us and many others back with stoneage ideas and I for one am sick of this bullshit.

 

[Darksqueee]

Going with what a group has said on here: "it's not just Catholicism that's outdated."

 

[LittleChone]

Being Catholic myself, I tend to see religion as something that can be changed, but should still hold respect to tradition. Now, I can't agree more that religion DOES need to change, but I can also see how some people might feel offended if that does happen. Religion is something personal to people, and to some it's all they have left in this world. So if change is ever to happen, it has to be for the greater good.

 

[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out dated is a perfectly good reason to be against something, the medical system of the "four humours" in the body is outdated massive but we don't cure people by drugs and medicine just for the novelty of it.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.

The father part is irrelevant. It isn't as if there is also some omniscient and omnipotent female being hanging around. The divide isn't being made on the basis of gender, and attributing a gender to God is somewhat of a questionable concept.

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?

Unless you can prove that they are using it for control there is no problem. As for the wealth, are you suggesting they are abusing it? They actually have charities and hospitals and whatnot. No one said that their sole purpose was to teach the Bible, and even then they need someone to live, they need somewhere to gather for church, they are an organization so there are administrative things to deal with.

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.

Well that's a counterargument against them, but not an argument for removing the Pope.

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.

Except we can look at certain parts and see no taint of patriarchy in them so to say it will all be tainted with that is false. As for updating, you would need to propose it in a theologically sound manner. Otherwise you're just saying the religion is wrong and your ideas are better.

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.

That is not a good reason to come the conclusion that they must be doing it for that reason. As far as I know they maintain their tradition that marriage is between a man and a women in the eyes of God, which will of course prevent homosexual relationships given they only believe in sex in marriage.

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.

Okay, then what science were you referring to that contradicts the Pope?

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.

Well that's just a disagreement, not proof something is outdated.

With the Gender of God the go to image is of a big man in robes. Now whether this is correct image or not I don't feel is important it's what people think that matters. And if they only see a man at the head of the church that will continue the trend. Only a man is given the right to be the closest link to God. In all honesty if a woman could become head of the catholic church it would make me feel better. And no, not some token woman drummed up for a bit of political correctness, but one genuinely suited for the job although I feel that is unlikely.

With the wealth I can't help but think all that gold and expensive paintings sitting in the Vatican could be better used. But that is my personal opinion and I'm not suggesting that we ransack the place, just they are one of the wealthiest group of people on the planet. All stemming from the beliefs of a man who lived a very, monetarily (spelt right?), poor existence. And of course the pope needs someone to live, everywhere does, but an entire city state is a bit excessive in my eyes.

Not directly an argument for removing him but an argument as to why he is outdated. It's a role he used to feel and it's one I don't think he either a)does feel any more or b) needs to feel. Some groups feel differently and yes some people do get moral guidance from the church and the concept of religion, and if that's what does it for you fair enough. But I think it should be that people go to the church seeking help, the Vatican coming out with statements such as "IVF is wrong" (they shunned the noble prize winner for IVF) is completely out of line since I bet it made a lot of couples happy, and did little harm to anyone else. Ofcourse I do realise they are entitled to their own opinion, just as you and I are, but it's a bit different when it's a massive organisation.

If you pick the parts that are not "tainted" then surely the whole thing becomes arbitrary? Your leaving it in the hands of humans who are trying to guess the mind of God which is surely impossible and what's right or wrong (and in turn what God wants) can change depending on who's in power. I mean one of the Pope's let Hitler get on with his business in Germany (I don't have any sources but I don't see why GCSE history would lie to me, and the Pope seemed to have a good idea of what was going on). Also I'm not saying that Catholicism was pro-nazi just at one point in time certain member of them didn't do as much as he could've to help. I'm really not trying to use shock tactics here just the first example that popped into my mind.

Maintain a tradition, doing something because they've always done it. Why is it wrong in God's eyes? If we are all created in God image he must have created some of us to be homosexual. If it's just a by product of the environment then why were they created with capacity to become homosexual? And why not let homosexuals get married?

I'm not saying my ideas are better. I don't think anyone should say how anyone else should govern themselves morally (the laws of a country aren't really moral laws they are laws for a good and stable society), but if you are going to use a 2000 year old book as the basis why can't it be adapted? I'm not even saying I'd be the one to administer the process, I'm sure they can come up with something. This may seem contradictory to an earlier point, but this is just IF a book written by humans is to be used why can't it be changed now. Large sections were added at later dates anyways, why not doing now?

The pope's defiantly in disagreement with the morality involved in IVF and Abortion, and the majority of "pro-life" campaigns to have a religious backing to them. Also the role of evolution for many years has not been excepted, although I admit if they have changed their views on this I retract my statement.

Fair enough to it being merely a disagreement. I realise that if we just did what ever the modern thinking was we'd never get anywhere. I mean we'd still think the sun revolved around the earth.

 

[Thedayrecker]

I think most organized religion is outdated. The upcoming generation (at least were I live) may call itself christian, but in reality they're apatheists. They just label themselves as christian, because that's what their parents taught them.

 

[savandicus]

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

This made me laugh, your entire point is that the catholics opinions are silly and outdated and that they should not be allowed to believe what they believe and then you end with that. Hypocrosy at its finest.

Catholics are allowed to believe in the pope, they are allowed to believe whatever the heck they like about same sex relationships, they arent allowed to emotionally of physically attack anyone else because that person practises a same sex relation.

Just like everyone else, believe what you like, act in a way that respects your fellow man and their belief. Just like you are allowed to believe that the pope is outdated but your not able to go shoot the pope.

 

[icame]

Yes it is. Though I may be biased with me being an atheist

Most of the catholics I meat are pretty cool people. They don't believe every stupid thing in the bible such as the hatred of homosexuality. I have met a few crazy catholics, one even came to my door trying to get me 'help stop the spreading plague.' I had a good hour conversation with him, and it took every bit of will I had to stop me from punching him. The amount of hate this man had for Homosexuality was simply disgusting.

I think the world would be a much better place if there was no religion.

 

[WanderingFool]

I dont see anything wrong with religion, its the people that fallow and lead the religion. That said, I think Chatholicism is outdated, and there needs to be a movement to bring it into the modern age.

 

[icame]

How about we all convert to the church of Cthulu! That would be awesome!

 

[Baradiel]

I don't know... Do all abrahamic religions exist only as means of legitimizing oppression and consumption of planetary resources to increase the wealth and power of various elite/royal classes the world over?

Do they exist almost entirely to:
1. Legititmize primarily male dominator hierarchies and systematic oppression
2. Promote the idea of anthropocentrism, the belief that humans are superior to all other lifeforms, and that human will always supercedes the will of any other organism, or even that other organisms have no will of their own.
3. To make the masses believe that their lives on Earth are a test or judgement and that the only consequences that matter are ones concerning their afterlives, so that they don't question the domination that keeps them as ad hoc slaves.
4. To promote imperial expansion in order to allow the wealthy elites to retain and increase their wealth, in the name of converting heathens and/or civilizing savages.

Oh my, no offense but you're just a little bit of crazy away from conspiracy theorist, also Humans are superior to all other life forms that we know of, thats why people have zoos.

He's not a conspiracy theorist. He's pointing out very obvious points.

1. Women are not allowed to be in the clergy in Catholicism. Numerous Bible passages say that the wife should be subservient to the husband. By using the threat of an afterlife, based on their actions in this life, people are manipulated through fear into following the diktats of a century old book.

2. The Bible basically gives humanity free reign to fuck about with any animal/non-human simply because it isn't human. Animal rights? Fuck 'em. The Good Book says they don't have any!

3. As mentioned in the first point, name one scientific reason, other than fear, to believe in any form of an afterlife. We don't KNOW what happens when we die, and the fact we're blessed with imagination means we can create the idea that there is divine judgement waiting for us. Karl Marx once described religion as 'The opium of the masses' and he was spot on. 'Obey your King! He is chosen by God!' 'Obey the Pope, he is God's chosen!'. That was how feudalism worked: Lords were chosen by the Monarch (chosen by God, remember), so in essence the Lords were Gods servants.

4. The Pope gave permission to explorers in the Americas to enslave and pillage the civilisations there, because it would bring them closer to God. Its common knowledge that giving people a common enemy unites them. The First Crusade was just that. Europe was in chaos, just coming out of the Dark Ages. There were warlords and rebellions all over the place. The Pope at the time knew he needed to regain some semblance of order, so he promised any and all people who went on the Crusade eternal reward in heaven.

So yeah, Hunde Des Krieg was pretty much stating facts.

 

[messy]

Snip

First of all I think it's safe to say that you and I have very differing opinions on this and I don't see either of us convincing each other any time soon. However I just want to say thank you for the intelligent conversation you've generated. Its' been a rather boring last few days and this really got the heart/mind racing.

Also I am willing to admit the Pope himself may not be outdated, and at the very least is not intrinsically outdated. I think the majority of problems with religion is with some of the people who practise it, not the concept itself. Belief in a deity itself is fine, and it can be neither proved not disproved so who am I to judge what's real. The only thing I will clear up is that Atheist disagree when concerned with their own personal morality not some scientific morality. I know science cannot make moral judgements (I said similar earlier), we also can't do aesthetic ones either.

Now I think the best way to put this sort of message is without me putting anything so it doesn't look like I'm declaring myself the winning then buggering off.

(oh sorry for the snip, but things looks better aesthetically this way, now just need a way to prove it)

 

[Duskwaith]

Youve watched the Catholic faith? In what sense? did you follow the pope round for a day or have you based your entire view on some Fox news esque media?

The catholic church is alittle behind the times but it was a hell of alot worse pre-Vatican council II and this whole crap about deposing the Pope is just stupid like he is some sort of dictato, catholic dogma dicates he is the succesor of Peter.

Id sooner like to see rober mugabe being overthrown instead of an old guy

 

[Ethylene Glycol]

OP, for your next poll, you should ask "is water wet?"

 

[Geekosaurus]

Outdated doesn't necessarily mean bad - look at Converse. But in the case of the Catholic church, yeah it's pretty bad.

 

[AK47Marine]

Is challenging other people's beliefs and choices because they don't gel with your beliefs and choices outdated? That's been going on pretty much since we had language and has caused plenty of deaths, wars, etc.

I'm not actively trying to troll or anything here, I'm just saying, they do things their way, you do things yours, can't we all just ignore each other in the name of getting along and lowering our collective blood pressure?

 

[rutger5000]

Catholisme is not outdated, for it differs from person to person. Some have outdated ideas, some have not.
The Vatican however is outdated, it has no place in the modern western world anymore. Anyone who disagrees should either check the news more often or get a brain check.
Blaming the Vatican for wars and poverty isn't fair though. Like the Unworthy Gentleman said: "Religion is used as a mask for the greed of men." The greed of men is the cause of wars and poverty, not religion. Without religion people would have found other excuses to start wars.

 

[kypsilon]

I have nothing good to say about religion, so I won't bother. I do believe that as religions go, staunch Catholicism suffers from stagnation. Their views are so wrapped up in ritual and history that they seem to have no place in a modern society. Many things that crop up in religion are often societal quirks that were adopted into formal ritual. As it stands now though, I think Catholicism is a business, a slow lumbering corpulent mass that will eventually shift its ludicrous heft into something a little more palatable to today's society...but not without some serious growing pains. Until they do, find some other way to get your God on.

 

[Sinclair Solutions]

Catholisme is not outdated, for it differs from person to person. Some have outdated ideas, some have not.
The Vatican however is outdated, it has no place in the modern western world anymore. Anyone who disagrees should either check the news more often or get a brain check.
Blaming the Vatican for wars and poverty isn't fair though. Like the Unworthy Gentleman said: "Religion is used as a mask for the greed of men." The greed of men is the cause of wars and poverty, not religion. Without religion people would have found other excuses to start wars.

The Vatican is not really outdated. They are about as up to date with the sciences as you can think. They even have a team of scientists that live in Vatican City and are paid to figure out everything from quantum physics to the origins of the universe. The Vatican is just as, if not more open to find out how the world works as the average atheist.

See, I think the assumption that most of this thread is going under is that everyone who is religious are the dickheads we see on TV or we have run into in life, or that the official views of the Church match these dickheads. Not so. The official view of the Catholic Church is to be very open to the sciences, though I doubt any "devout" Catholic follows that view.

But I think what this threads needs to determine is the difference between just having faith and being an ignorant zealot. Are we really going to blame the whole Catholic Church because of the zealots, who probably make up a minority of the Catholic population? That would be like other people condemning the whole video game industry because of the antics of the thirteen year old psychos on Halo multiplayer.

 

[irani_che]

popular religion is never
It ability to change and re-interpret itself defines how long it lasts for.
If all catholics felt the same as you then the preists and such would change their views accordingly.
but ppl agree with them enough for the church to be comfortable in pushing the rest of the beleifs.
If you dont believe me, look at how much its message has changed in the past 20/50 100 years