Why Can't We Respect Other Peoples Beliefs? — Page 4

Warbler said:

I personally think the Pope needs to resign.  It won't solve the problems they have, but its a good first step.

 He can't resign...his boss has to sack him (well he can but the last time that happened was in the 13th Century).

Warbler said:

I personally think the Pope needs to resign.  It won't solve the problems they have, but its a good first step.   

But Ben's only had the big hat for a few years. A great deal of the shadiness and raping happened under the watch of the previous guy, the near universally beloved JP2.

maybe, but  "Ben"  had been directly involved with a cover up himself.    If JP2 was still pope and it came out that he was involved with covering things up, I'd say he would have to leave to.   The Catholic Church desperately needs leadership that is trusted by the people.     Do you think Ben is trusted by the people?  Anything he tried to do to clean up this mess will be regarded as suspect.    Whatever is done to clean up the church will have a better chance of working if someone else is at the helm,  someone whom is totally uninvolved in any cover up. 

I just got this awful image in my head of Tony Blair running for Pope.

He who must not be blamed.

I think that is rather unlikely. 

C3PX said:

Warbler said:

I personally think the Pope needs to resign.  It won't solve the problems they have, but its a good first step.   

First step to what?

um . . . to fixing the problems the Catholic Church has?

C3PX said:

Do you really think JP2 was never involved in any coverups during all his years?

I never said he wasn't, but I can't get him to resign.  If he were still here and documented evidence came out the he was directly involved in a cover up,  I'd say he should resign as well. 

C3PX said:

None of it will change anything. Should the Pope just resign anytime something like this is uncovered?

when he is directly involved,  when he is no longer trusted/respected,  when any solution he comes up with would be regarded as suspect,  when the "something like this" has been uncovered multiple times over and over again,   

yes he should resign.   

His church is in crisis mode.   The Catholic church desperately needs change, big time change.     Do you really think the current Pope  is capable of that kind of thing?    The Catholic church needs new and fresh ideas.   Its need leadership the people can look up to.         

C3PX said:

Can that really even be considered even a tiniest step in any kind of direction?

yep,  assuming that the Cardinals pick the right guy to replace him.    I don't how you can consider it anything but a good first step.   

So your telling me that there is no one in the Catholic Church can lead it better than the Current guy?  That someone who is involve with covering up a Priest that rapped children, should remain Pope?

vote_for_palpatine said:

The Catholic church needs new and fresh ideas.

Like what?

perhaps allowing Priests to marry?   maybe allowing women to become Priests?     I don't know.   What I do know is that someone involved in covering for a Priest that rapes children shouldn't be Pope.   The Pope is supposed to be a man of God.  Do you really think that's what the current Pope is? 

xhonzi said:

Buddhism is kind of new and fresh right now?

obviously, I wasn't recommending that kind change. 

Warbler said:

vote_for_palpatine said:

The Catholic church needs new and fresh ideas.

Like what?

perhaps allowing Priests to marry?   maybe allowing women to become Priests?     I don't know.  

It's interesting that in a "respect other beleifs" thread, aren't those kind of arbitrary atacks on basic Catholic doctine? Do they really need new and fresh (Protestant) ideas, or do they just need to STOP F--KING CHILDREN, which is a fairly old idea?

yes, they do need to stop ****ing children, and they need to stop covering it up when it happens. But they need to do more than that, they need to make it clear to the people that it has stopped. They need to make it clear that Priests/Bishops/Archbishops/Cardinals/the Pope can be trusted again. Do you really think all that can happen with the current guy?

actually, Priests being Celibate wasn't originally part of Catholic doctrine. Early on, Priests could get married.

The reason giving for not allowing Women to be Priests(that none of the 12 disciples were women) just seems silly to me. None of the disciple were Chinese, does that mean a Chinese person can't become a Priest? Also, I believe all the disciples were Jewish, does this mean that only Jewish people can be Priests.

but really, I didn't mean to say that the Catholics to start acting like Protestants, I just meant that the Catholic church needs to change. It is in crisis mode, there is a Priest storage. I really don't think it can keep going the way its going.

if you ask me, keeping a Pope that covered for a Priest that molested children is a BIG violation of basic Catholic doctrine.

Stop having priests would be a fresh new idea.

They could have a congregation who are all trained to transubstantiate a very light snack into the body and blood of Christ and take turns every Sunday.

That way pedophile Catholics wouldn't have any perceived higher authority to use to get away with abusing anyone.

xhonzi said:

What you might be trying to say, and what I'd agree with you: They need to return to their basics.  They don't need fresh new ideas, they need to return to the ideas that are/should be at the core of their faith.

Warbler said:

The reason giving for not allowing Women to be Priests(that none of the 12 disciples were women) just seems silly to me.

Mass should go back to being Latin, and plenury indulgences should return? Should the church give up it's tacit approval of evolution and it's admittance that Galeleio wa right? Should all of Vatican 2 be revoked so that we can go back to what we apparently think is/should be the core of their faith? Or should only what seems "silly" have to change back, and other changes are OK?

As we all agree the molestation and institutional corruption is bad, but it just strikes me as odd that in a thread about respecting other people's beleifs, we're still totally comfortable saying how the Catholics beliefs are dumb.

I think respecting respectable beliefs (no matter how odd or out there they may seem) is perfectly fine.

Surely we are duty bound to disrespect and be openly hostile (no fisticuffs) to beliefs which encourage hate, crime and bigotry.

The thread is posed as a question not as a statement of intent.

Bingowings said:

I think respecting respectable beliefs (no matter how odd or out there they may seem) is perfectly fine.

Surely we are duty bound to disrespect and be openly hostile (no fisticuffs) to beliefs which encourage hate, crime and bigotry.

 A couple thoughts-

1- Since Kiddie-raping is not part of Catholic doctrine, using it as a reason to say "The Catholics need to change their beliefs to be more in line with what we (Protestants? Evangelicals? Anyone smarted than a damn mackerel-snapping papist?) think their faith should be about" seems to be a strech.

2. Does the mainstream Christian belief that gays go to hell count as not-respectable? It seems to me it encourages hate, whether expicit ("God Hates Fags") or phrased really polite ("hate the sin, not the sinner.")  Does this mean one should not respect any of these people?

"My religion is the rock of my life. It forms the foundation of everything I do. It guides how I think and how I live. It guides how I eat, how I marry, raise my children. Through it I chose what virtues to embrace and what acts to avoid. It tells me what I should do with my money and what activites i should do with my spare time."

"Good job buddy! Go religion!"

"My religion also tells me what sorts of people I should like and dislike."

"Booo! You suck and your religion is crazy!"

TheBoost said:

xhonzi said:

What you might be trying to say, and what I'd agree with you: They need to return to their basics.  They don't need fresh new ideas, they need to return to the ideas that are/should be at the core of their faith.

 

Warbler said:

The reason giving for not allowing Women to be Priests(that none of the 12 disciples were women) just seems silly to me.

Mass should go back to being Latin, and plenury indulgences should return? Should the church give up it's tacit approval of evolution and it's admittance that Galeleio wa right? Should all of Vatican 2 be revoked so that we can go back to what we apparently think is/should be the core of their faith? Or should only what seems "silly" have to change back, and other changes are OK?

As we all agree the molestation and institutional corruption is bad, but it just strikes me as odd that in a thread about respecting other people's beleifs, we're still totally comfortable saying how the Catholics beliefs are dumb.

you seem to be reading things into my posts which aren't there.  I never said that Catholic beliefs are dumb.   Nor did I say that all of Vatican 2 should be revoked nor any of the other stuff you mentioned.   You make it seem like I am bigoted against the Catholic Church.   That is just not so.

TheBoost said:

Bingowings said:

I think respecting respectable beliefs (no matter how odd or out there they may seem) is perfectly fine.

Surely we are duty bound to disrespect and be openly hostile (no fisticuffs) to beliefs which encourage hate, crime and bigotry.

 A couple thoughts-

1- Since Kiddie-raping is not part of Catholic doctrine, using it as a reason to say "The Catholics need to change their beliefs to be more in line with what we (Protestants? Evangelicals? Anyone smarted than a damn mackerel-snapping papist?) think their faith should be about" seems to be a strech.

again,  I didn't say that Catholics need to change their beliefs.   All I'm saying is that the Catholic church needs better leadership.

TheBoost said:

2. Does the mainstream Christian belief that gays go to hell count as not-respectable? It seems to me it encourages hate, whether expicit ("God Hates Fags") or phrased really polite ("hate the sin, not the sinner.")  Does this mean one should not respect any of these people?

actually gays don't go to hell.   It is those that have failed to take Christ as their savior, that go to hell.   If a Gay takes Christ as his Savior, he is saved.   I believe that is the mainstream Christian belief

TheBoost said:

 

"My religion is the rock of my life. It forms the foundation of everything I do. It guides how I think and how I live. It guides how I eat, how I marry, raise my children. Through it I chose what virtues to embrace and what acts to avoid. It tells me what I should do with my money and what activites i should do with my spare time."

"Good job buddy! Go religion!"

"My religion also tells me what sorts of people I should like and dislike."

"Booo! You suck and your religion is crazy!"

?

Warbler said:

 you seem to be reading things into my posts which aren't there.  I never said that Catholic beliefs are dumb.   Nor did I say that all of Vatican 2 should be revoked nor any of the other stuff you mentioned.   You make it seem like I am bigoted against the Catholic Church.   That is just not so.

I was kind of riffing on your and xhonzi's post at once (although you did suggest women priests and called their reasoning 'silly'). It seems off to pick and chose what other religions' "core beliefs" are worthy (if we agree that child buggering is not a core belief).

 actually gays don't go to hell.   It is those that have failed to take Christ as their savior, that go to hell.   If a Gay takes Christ as his Savior, he is saved.   I believe that is the mainstream Christian belief

Fair enough for your church, but in responce to Bingo's post, if a Church does believe that (or, as I've heard before that if you REALLY accepted Christ you wouldn't be gay anymore, so a gay can't be saved QED) does that mean we are duty bound to NOT respect them?

Any book that says selling your children, stoning people to death for having sex with someone of the same gender etc is good should be openly ridiculed and anyone truly believing such nonsense too.

It certainly shouldn't be used in defense of any crimes committed in the name of that faith.

The same is true of the Koran, the Torah and any other book claimed to be of divine origin.

If it's the word of God, then God is barking mad and shouldn't be listened to.

If it was written by men over a period of hundreds of years it can be re-written by men.

Bingowings said:

Any book that says selling your children, stoning people to death for having sex with someone of the same gender etc is good should be openly ridiculed and anyone truly believing such nonsense too.

If it was written by men over a period of hundreds of years it can be re-written by men.

Ok then.

Ignore my previous comments, as they were from the misunderstanding you were with the "respect religion" crew. If that's your stance, there's no confusion on my end.

TheBoost said:

Fair enough for your church, but in responce to Bingo's post, if a Church does believe that (or, as I've heard before that if you REALLY accepted Christ you wouldn't be gay anymore, so a gay can't be saved QED) does that mean we are duty bound to NOT respect them?

if you accept Christ, you don't stop sinning.   Everyone sins,  even believers.

TheBoost said:

I was kind of riffing on your and xhonzi's post at once (although you did suggest women priests and called their reasoning 'silly'). It seems off to pick and chose what other religions' "core beliefs" are worthy (if we agree that child buggering is not a core belief).

you asked for suggestions for what might be changed.   I gave one.    perhaps silly was the wrong word, but the reason behind the belief that women shouldn't be Priests just doesn't make sense to me.

Bingowings said:

Any book that says selling your children, stoning people to death for having sex with someone of the same gender etc is good should be openly ridiculed and anyone truly believing such nonsense too.

that book also says let he who is without sin,  let him cast the first stone.