Re: The Pope Thread [UK visit 2010 - merged]
 

I think the thing about the pope is to have a fragile looking one. best they get another old one. people may not take to a young spring chicken that can walk everywhere unaided.

Re: The Pope Thread [UK visit 2010 - merged]
 

I have to be honest i have never understood the whole man only thing some religions seem to have going on the catholic church being high on the list of sexist religions. As far as i am concerned a woman or for that fact a gay or lesbian with faith is every bit as qualified to spread the word of god and the teachings of all religions there is no practical reason why they cannot and therefore the only reason i can see is deep seated bigotry and ignorance hiding behind constructed religious belief or ideology. I may be an atheist not sure i qualify as an extreme one or not but i view all people on their individual merits as an individual and accept or reject them as such. Seems to little ignorant old me that if more religions had that approach we would live in a far happier and more progressive world then the one were stuck with at the minute.

Re: The Pope Thread [UK visit 2010 - merged]
 

well that's the big question regarding religion Rizzy,why can't religion get upto date ,not just christianity but all religions .They all seem to be stuck in a 2000yr old time loop or something. Most religions just have not progressed with the rest of society

Re: The Pope Thread [UK visit 2010 - merged]
 

Well, therein lies the problem Marty ... religions, in one way or another, claim to say something about God (or gods), what he/she/they are like, and what we should do about it.

If the idea of a religion is to focus people on God, in what way should the religion 'change'? After all, in your view it's society that has changed, not God.

Re: The Pope Thread [UK visit 2010 - merged]
 

Apparently he blessed our training ground at Wast Hills when his helicopter used our helipad for this visit to Brum. So he gets a thumbs up from me.

Re: The Pope Thread [UK visit 2010 - merged]
 

well you have the Vatican a mini state that exists to keep the status quo .

Re: The Pope Thread [UK visit 2010 - merged]
 

That question opens up more questions imo Chris .
Is modern religion (in your opinion) there to tell us how to do the will of god/s as laid down in a holy book ,or to guide us in how we should live our lives morally? .
If the latter then it is up to religion to change with society ,meeting changes in equality between the sexes for example,you must agree that inequality between sexes/people is wrong ,does that mean that god is wrong ?.
If religion is purely to guide us in worship of a particular deity as laid down with no compromise to his laws then in theory society should be as it was 2000 years ago because religion and society have always gone hand in hand so if religion doesn't change then nor should society,but society has changed and i suppose to some extent so has religion but not to the same degree ,religions seem to struggle when it comes to meeting modern societies demands.Is that because religion see's progress as against the will of god and therefore wrong or is it just a plain and simple power thing enforced by the male rulers of religions

Re: The Pope Thread [UK visit 2010 - merged]
 

there we have it the pope gone back home.

Re: The Pope Thread [UK visit 2010 - merged]
 

I'm all for further questions Marty. You know I love a good chin-wag. ;)

First though, I can't give a single answer about what 'modern religion' tries to do - there are lots of religions and I can only really speak for the one I adhere to, Christianity.

Christianity says that:

1. God is a perfect moral Being.
2. Humans have offended him by living less than perfect lives.
3. It is impossible for any human to live up to God's perfect moral standard.
4. Humans would all therefore be destined to spend the afterlife excluded from God's presence ...
5. ... were it not for the fact that God, in the form of Jesus Christ, endured punishment on behalf of all humans.
6. Therefore any human who accepts all of this, and resolves to live the life God requires, by the strength that God gives him, will not be excluded from God's presence in the hereafter.

So there are aspects of both - it is about doing what God requires, and living a moral life. But Christianity derives its definition of 'morality' from God, not from society. 'Moral' is what God says it is, not what modern society says it is. This is why Christianity can't change its morals.

It is not the case that in order to live a moral life, as defined by the Christian God, we would have to live as people lived 2,000 years ago. There is nothing inherently immoral about cars, computers or central heating, for example.

Human conduct hasn't changed in 2,000 years though. The reason the Bible writer called Paul argued against homosexual practice, for example, was because there was plenty of it around at the time, especially in Greece and Rome (Paul wrote about it in a letter addressed to Christians living in Rome who wanted to know whether it was acceptable - he was unequivocal in stating that in the eyes of the Christian God, it is not).

As far as exclusively male leadership is concerned; Paul also wrote plenty about authority and roles for men and women. He taught that men and women are absolutely equal before God, but that God created men and women different, in the way they relate to each other, in order to help teach people about the relationship between God and people. This isn't nearly complete enough as an answer but I'm aware that this post is getting quite long. So I'm going to stop here ... ask further questions if you want to. :)

Re: The Pope Thread [UK visit 2010 - merged]
 

I've got a question. well two questions.

is there a chance that Paul could have written anything he wanted pretending that it's actually Gods view and not his own views or opinions?

stupid question this one. is it just Paul that God dictated to? nobody else could hear God if you like?

Re: The Pope Thread [UK visit 2010 - merged]
 

Well far as i can see if religion doesn't alter to catch up with society then it has no place to criticise society although it seems some never tire of criticising which i guess is easier to do then actually make any meaningful changes to how things are within many of the worlds recognised faiths. All i see happening if there is no change is churches getting emptier and emptier to the point that by it's own inaction to change the church whatever one it may be will cease to be anything meaningful or relevent to the world in which it is trying to take part in. Me i will carry on my nazi atheist existence treating all i meet as individuals not a group, it has by and large worked for me so far :).

Re: The Pope Thread [UK visit 2010 - merged]
 

Thank you for an excellant response Chris,
I would like to concentrate on the above point as it is more pertinant to the "pope thread" if i may.How do christians respect homosexuals as people equal to others even though it is against gods will (as stated in Pauls letters) .My morals are to treat gay people as equals,the catholic church has different views as does Islam ,and yet the morals that teach us to accept gay people as equals goes directly against gods will .I suppose what i am asking is ,shouldn't christianity re-interpret the bible or specifically the new testament as has happened before over the centuries to be more intune with modern society ?.

Re: The Pope Thread [UK visit 2010 - merged]
 

Well, I can't speak specifically for the Pope or for Roman Catholics, as I'm not one. However I think I'm right in saying that orthodox, Evangelical Protestant theology has the same approach as the Catholic. So here goes.

The outline I gave above is, essentially, a brief discussion of the consequences of, and the remedy for, sin. Sin being the concept of failing to live up to God's perfect moral standard. The thing about sin is, everybody is trapped by it. You, me, everyone. The only difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is that the Christian believes he has discovered the means to be forgiven for his sin and to avoid paying a penalty for it.

Sin is not defined as a narrow set of pet hates that the Church currently has a problem with - it goes far deeper. The teachings of Jesus, recorded by John, (one of his closest friends) say that a man who even just looks at a woman who isn't his wife and imagines himself having sex with her is committing sin. You don't even have to actually do it. Same goes for looking at someone else and thinking murderous thoughts. As far as God is concerned, it's as bad as actually killing someone.

The point of me saying all this is to illustrate the point that no Christian with a balanced view of himself can possibly treat a gay person as anything less than an equal. We are all equally fallible and we all need the same remedy.

As to why the Bible gets so frothy about sexual sin - and that's heterosexual sin, as well as homosexual sin - well, I touched on it a little in my earlier post. God created man and woman to be different but complementary, and able to relate to one another physically and emotionally in a way that would help them to understand the relationship spiritually between God and humankind. In Christian teaching, any deviation from the one man, one woman, exculsive, lifelong marriage relationship is a departure from that illustration and a misuse of a God-given gift.

Re: The Pope Thread [UK visit 2010 - merged]
 

Did he expect the thinking of sex should come into it later?
have you said that right? when you say "isn't his wife" should that be she's already married to somebody?

So because you resisted the temptation [known as the devil) you're still as bad. you may as well have killed him! which just says the devil is equal and not worser than God.

Re: The Pope Thread [UK visit 2010 - merged]
 

Not really ... I'm trying to describe Jesus' line on the subject without resorting to overly religious words like 'lust', which is how he actually put it. It's not sinful to look at a woman, think you'd like to marry her, and mentally acknowledge everything that goes with that. Desire between a man and a woman can be pure. The problem arises when the desire is for a purely physical relationship, or a relationship conceived without the intent for it to be permanent and committed.

Again, not really. Temptation, and acting on it, is a process. Being tempted isn't a sin, but there comes a point where a person inwardly accepts that that is what they want to do .. they kind of 'agree' with the temptation, if you like. They may then either go on and do it, or not; either way, once the temptation is 'conceived', that's the point where you're in trouble. The teaching on that comes from James, who was one of Jesus' brothers.

Incidentally, orthodox Christian belief is that the Devil is a real being - he is the tempter, not the temptation itself.

Re: The Pope Thread [UK visit 2010 - merged]
 

Anyone interested in buying a Popemobile for sale just click HERE;)