to think that if the comments reagrding the Pope and Catholicism in general were being made about any other religion or group of people...

[domesticsluttery]

...it would be deemed entirely unacceptable?

I don't just mean on MN, it seems to be everywhere. I am not a Catholic, but I am really at a lot of what I have heard.

OK, the abuse scandals are completely shocking. But this doesn't mean that the entire Catholic Church and all of its members were involved. There have been plenty of scandals involving the abuse of children in care homes where it has been covered up by so called professionals, but this doesn't mean that anyone involved in social services is implicated. There are plenty of cases of abuse, doemstic violence etc carried out by teachers, police etc and covered up, this doesn't disgrace the whole profession.

It must be pretty hard going to be a Catholic at the moment. I can't help feeling that if the same kind of comments and outright mocking were being made about other religions there would be an outcry.

Whatever happened to live and let live?

Not all historical experience is irrelevant, just that that gives a religious body some relevance that it no longer has. Unless most of us can unlearn our more tangible and scientific outlook I can't see that Catholics past persecution is relevant in today's, thankfully, secular society.

Science is the true god. PMSL. What a small mind you have!

PMSL....at what? The notion that science makes religion redundant?

If you crazy kids can find a single thread that randomly picks on Catholics I will be very shocked. Sexist, Homophobic, systematic child abuse is not random.

Science will never make religion redundant, and doesn't have all the answers.
Religious worship existed in civilisations everywhere, and no amount of worshiping at the feet of the likes of Richard Dawkins is going to change that,- as much as you'd like it to.

If science did have all the answers then would it make religion redundant? What are the questions which religion answers which science doesn't?

Why the vitriol for Dawkins? I don't see that atheists worship at his feet- more that they respect his understanding of scientific principles.

I well understand that many people have a deep need for a spiritual dimension in their lives. Quite why this has to include belief in an all-powerful god, I don't know.

But I guess that is a different matter for a different thread.

Noone worships at the feet of Richard Dawkins, I was an atheist looooong before I'd ever heard of him. I was an atheist as a child, I have no notion of belief in things not proven. What exactly has religious worship in civilisations everywhere got to do with anything, all that it proves given the diverse range of belief is that human condition has a need for answers to the questions why am I here? Where did I come from? and what happens when I die?

" LOL at Catholics saying that homophobia is wrong (on first page) - FFS - it's YOU LOT who say they are morally corrupt, can't be part of your church and are going to hell!
"
Lal123, I think that your post is what the OP is talking about. I am RC and I have never said, nor do I believe what you are charging me of. You are also ignorant of the concept of papal infallability if you think that it means that he is infallible in everything he says.

The Catholic church is 2000 years old and has over 1billion members. If you look at any group with that amount of history and members you are going to find nasty stuff. That does not mean that it hasn't changed, nor that all of it's members feel exactly the same about everything.

The Catholic church is not 2000 years old. Synoptic Gospels were not penned 2000 years ago, and there's no evidence of Peter Bishop of rome.

Science can never replace religion

religion can never replace science

if you have a faith it's a part of you- for whatever reason, whether real, biological, chemical.. it is and it's that simple

Whereas science is about provable (rather, disproving!) phenomena. It is about what we can see, causes, and is a whole entity in itself. Is is not amde less valid not able to replace faith.

Faith isn't earth as centre of the universe, or creation etc- that's individual doctrine. Faith is a certainty inside that there is more, there is something beyond science.

And crucially, faith is not to answer for wars, hatred, intolerance- that's dogma, man, organised religion.

It's quite possible to have faith and believe in evolution, bio-ethical research, etc- and as such I think it is helpful if people separate the faith from the religion when stepping into these waters.

Science may reach a point that all importnant questions are answered, and religious myths completely disproved. Religion has declined since science started ticking boxes.

Absolutely, and I am not a big fan of organised religion myself, for a multitude of reasons.

But I do think that faith will continue, but in a differentw ay because it is more personal. I suspect religion has declined for a great many reasons- working on Sundays, being able to live in a village and not be villified if you don't attend the local CofW (!), etc.

Whereas the inner faith continues if it is there.

lal123 - The Pope isn't infallible. He can still put his slippers on the wrong feet or whatever. Papal Infallability only applies in certain circumstances - I think were it is the 'settled view of the church' or something. It's like stamping INFALLIBLE on a particular ruling. I don't don't the status of the things you mention in relation to this.

I agree that faith is not to blame for wars etc, tis man's fault.

Yup- men all the way.

not women, natch

(Do I need a emoticon? I always get jumped on for stuff like that!)

Where science contradicts faith, we generally find, over time that science wins out. This is mainly because science makes predictions and tests them.

So as science expands the things it can explain the space for God shrinks.

SO God's representative on earth can be wrong? So what's the point of him then? found this quite interesting - so basically he's only infallible when he says he is? Yeah - that makes sense

"I agree that faith is not to blame for wars etc, tis man's fault."
At last posie, something you said makes sense.

The catholic church does not say that homosexuals go to hell - show me evidence that it does please. Nor does it say that homosexuals are not welcome in the church. In fact there is plenty of evidence to say that Cardinal Newman who is soon to be beatified, was himself a gay man, albeit a celibate one. The church states that the sexual act between gay people is an infringement of nature because the church believes that sex is creative. I can fully understand why they think that, my mind is open. I don't claim to have an answer for that one.

Lastly I think you'll find it is the Jehovah's Witnesses who say that dinosaurs never existed.

Did anyone see the documentary on the secret Vatican? It showed the Vatican's own observatory where priests strive to find other planets that might sustain life. They don't see any conflict in that and what they believe.

Of course God's representative can be wrong. That article says, in terms that even you should be able to understand, that the word of God is considered to be infallible. It freely admits that some popes have been extremely bad choices and made some grave errors, but the doctrine they taught was infallible insomuch as it was the word of God.

BTino see here Seems that you are right - homosexuals will not go to hell, as long as they don't have homosexual sex.

Like I said lal, I have no answer for that one. I don't think the church has a right to tell one section of society that they must abstain from a loving act, but I can understand why they think the way they do.

My own personal conviction is that if it was that bad a sin, Jesus would have mentioned it. And though he mentioned most other sins, he didn't touch on homosexuality which has been with humanity ever since the year dot.

OK try this one: Religions are just another form of politics. It is not considered unacceptable to debate, question and indeed vigorously condemn and/or laugh at other people's political views - why should the fact that some of these political viewpoints are bound up with notions of imaginary friends make them immune to criticism?

Who says we are immune to criticism? The church welcomed, in fact commissioned the Nolan Report, done by someone who was not a catholic.

You should really get over yourself SGB, your whole aim appears to want to rile anyone of any religion into a heated response just so you can have a good argy bargy.

I'll bet all your friends love you for your tolerant and respectful nature!
Bumsex anyone?

Anyway, Paddy and Rory are on now and I'd rather watch them than waste my time on you SGB. That's not me being rude by the way, just truthful.

I suggest you lighten up, switch off the pc and watch it, it might help you rediscover your sense of humour!

BTino. I think you'll find all kinds of Christians are creationists, but I do understand those with less religious commitment who acknowledge science over religion, it stands to reason that at least some are intelligent enough that there understanding of the world moves to tangible evidence.

As for the Vatican I am looking forward to the EU's challenge in which they discover the whole place and state is illegal....

Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel,
Since God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Since God is marching on.