Pope Worries About 'Soulless' American Life

[Cruentus]

Yep...once upon a time I guess some just have some pretty dull axes lying around..

:rofl:

To try to redirect the topic back on topic...

I think that the inner search for meaning relies on the exceptence of a couple of premises.

#1. You have to believe that there is a God.

#2. You believe that you were born with a purpose of some sort in mind.

When you buy those 2, then it becomes a question of whether or not your living your life within the path that God wants you to take, so to speak. I believe that this is a constant journey, such is our lives.

If you don't buy the 1st 2 premises, though, then searching for meaning seems, well, meaningless to me.
:uhyeah:

 

[psi_radar]

Paul,

Please clarify or define your meaning of "god'. Is the God you mention a personified being of some type, a master architect, or a pervasive cosmic influence of some type?

:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

I don't want to belabor this line of discussion, since the topic is the inner search for meaning, but Paul, remember the catholic church IS a corporation, tithes could be considered taxes, and if the Pope's a pauper he scored the most excellent refrigerator box on the planet to live in. The Catholic Church has done some good things and some questionable things for the world at large. Beyond judging it as a whole, it cannot be denied that its actions have always been driven by shrewd motives that ultimately have allowed it to be one of the most enduring, poowerful, and financially successful organizations in history.

I'm sort of seeing this paragraph as another unfounded attack. The Catholic Church is a corporation where tithes are considered taxes? When you figure out whether you are talking about Government entities (who tax) or companies (who sell things), you let me know, K? And shrewd motives? Not sure what you mean, as shrewd could be bad or good, given that the word means clever or wise? How about I focus on the next paragraph...

The thrust of my point, which must not have been clear enough, is that it is indeed difficult to contemplate our place in a world in which obligation, stress, and responsibility dictates and consumes our actions. Society here in the US does indeed play a role in this by setting certain materialistic goals. I don't like it anymore than anyone else. So what's the solution? We can all try to find our place in the world and find some degree of enlightenment before we go wherever it is we go, and hurt as few people as we can along the way. Is there any more than that to do?

I agree with most of what you said, cept' think that we can help as many as we can as well. I think that the Pope or "church" remarking on morals and ethics in society in a helpful manner is very appropriate, as that is what spiritual leaders should do. I see nothing wrong with his comment. I see nothing accusatory in what the Pope had said, but I guess that people will take things different ways depending on their baggage and experiences.

:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

Paul,

Please clarify or define your meaning of "god'. Is the God you mention a personified being of some type, a master architect, or a pervasive cosmic influence of some type?

:asian:

I mean "God" in the most general sense, not bound to any particular religion or ideal.

 

[psi_radar]

I'm sort of seeing this paragraph as another unfounded attack. The Catholic Church is a corporation where tithes are considered taxes? When you figure out whether you are talking about Government entities (who tax) or companies (who sell things), you let me know, K? And shrewd motives? Not sure what you mean, as shrewd could be bad or good, given that the word means clever or wise? How about I focus on the next paragraph...

I didn't mean it as an attack, more of an explanation of my thinking, but take it as you will--'K? I said tithes could be considered a tax of sorts since it is an expected payment for anticipated services, the church overhead, the payment to St. Peter, whatever. Governments take money in the same way, in exchange for supposed programs and services. The Vatican actually has status as a government--a city/state. On the other hand, the church itself is considered a non-profit organization that is typically a non-taxed corporate entity. So it's both.

Shrewd simply means clever or wise, often used in context with business as leading to successful ventures. So they've been successful as a business by using shrewd methods and a great model.

I agree with most of what you said, cept' think that we can help as many as we can as well. I think that the Pope or "church" remarking on morals and ethics in society in a helpful manner is very appropriate, as that is what spiritual leaders should do. I see nothing wrong with his comment. I see nothing accusatory in what the Pope had said, but I guess that people will take things different ways depending on their baggage and experiences.

:asian:

You're right, helping people is always good. I'm moving away from the Pope thing now.

 

[psi_radar]

I mean "God" in the most general sense, not bound to any particular religion or ideal.

I wasn't thinking about religion as the definition, rather what sort of being do you think it/he/she is?

The reason I ask is because I believe in something similar to "the force" --sounds silly but it's the easiest way to describe it--a power that can influence events and makes the universe a cohesive place, but has no real plan in mind. God, as is traditionally thought of, is an architect with a grand plan, which, if you believe this, would definitely color your worldview differently than mine.

 

[Ender]

Interesting points, but some have fallen into the trap of questioning the messenger instead of the message. Sure you can find fault of the catholic church and maybe even this pope. However,the issue isn't the pope himself or the catholic church, the question is : is he correct in his observation?

I would say yes at this point. We as a nation have become more materialistic and more concerned about ourselves individually than others. Sure there are many giving, honest, caring people out there, but I think the number is shrinking. And yes, America still gives more money to charity than all the other nations combined. (I read somewhere that the US accounts for 51% of global charity by it's citizens). But I think the prior generation was more of a giving generation than this one is. The prior gneration would more readily sacrifice than this one, in my opinon. This generation seems more concerned with demanding their rights, forcing their morals on others thru the use of the government, not being "dissed", or how much they can get for themselves.

Something struck me the other day as I was listening to a commentator on the news. He said "When the Viet Nam generation dies off, Amercians will start to see things a bit differently." That statement hit me like a ton of bricks. Is the next generation ready to clean up our mistakes? are they worthy? Have we left them with enough training to stand on their own? To do the right thing? or to serve themselves?

But like one poster said...it's up to the parents to teach the children. And by looking at the movies, the TV, the news, I think we have failed them. Being a journalist is no longer a noble profession, it has become a profession that sensationalizes and distorts. For what?....to get ratings or push thru a political agenda. And judging by some of the posters here, many don't know how to disseminate the facts from the opinons, so how can they teach their children? They can't.

I think America will collapse within 40 years because of these factors:

Decreasing freedoms because of governmental growth
Moral Decay
an increasing litigious society
A decrease in taking responsibilty for ones' own actions
An educational system that is fast becoming second rate.


Maybe the pope has a point or two.

 

[Cruentus]

I wasn't thinking about religion as the definition, rather what sort of being do you think it/he/she is?

The reason I ask is because I believe in something similar to "the force" --sounds silly but it's the easiest way to describe it--a power that can influence events and makes the universe a cohesive place, but has no real plan in mind. God, as is traditionally thought of, is an architect with a grand plan, which, if you believe this, would definitely color your worldview differently than mine.

When I said that you have to buy the premise that "there is a God," I am refering to an anthropomorphic creator. In your definition, "God" is more like an energy with no plan (meaning ruled by chaos). I think in your definition, having a "purpose" in life is obsolete. Am I correct in saying this? It's kind of Taoist, and Taoist's (like Buddhists) are not concerned about "purpose."
:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

Ender...Awesome post!

 

[Marginal]

The correlation between museums like the Detroit Art Institute and "The Church" is that State dollars and taxes (money that is supposed to be used to protect citizens) goes to the museums every year, and they don't pay taxes.

You're creating a strawman. Once detroit starts telling people how they must live to live moral lives, then your point will begin to be relevant. As detroit does not decry materialism in defense of morality, it's not the same as the Papal edicts.

Your arguement, I'm afraid, is "marginal."

Wow. Two non arguments in one paragraph.

And you should maybe do a little research or provide a little evidence before you provide outlandish claims.

If the Pope needs to know nothing about US society, I need to know nothing about the church except that they live, breathe and bathe in opulence. (While claiming this is somehow bad.)

Church authority takes a vow to poverty;

Lucky they have all those pre existing chariots of gold then.

Your blanket statements have little wieght behind them.

Cool. Then I'm just as an astute observer of world conditions as the Pope. I don't have to know anything as long as I'm making a statement from my perceived moral high ground.

Combat materialism? Get rid of your material goods first.

Provide evidence that the Pope doesn't understand society, or that selling artifacts is a great solution to help fight poverty, or which pieces of work were paid for "in blood" by the church, and maybe you'll have a good arguement.

This is another nonargument.

The Church selling it's historical artifacts and donating the money to the poor is not the solution to poverty.

Why not?

If we sold Golden Cherubs as trophies to every Rich A-hole who'll but, and sites like the sistieen(sp?) chapel to Pepsico, poverty would still run rampet.

Depends on how you distributed the wealth. Why do you keep tacking historical to the golden cherub though? It's just a statue. Doesn't really demonstrate anything about history except that the church is greedy. Already know that.

That aside, please prove that donating billions to the poor wouldn't help conditions. (I love fruitless demands.)

You'd save a few at the expense of comercializing and capitalizing everything that is a part of our history, and on things that we should consider priceless and sacred.

I don't consider the Catholic church sacred. It's already commercialized, so we aren't sparing the world a great loss there either. On top of that, it has little historical impact on me personally. My ancestors were far enough away from Rome that the Papal army didn't really muscle the Papal editcs or demands for cash etc onto them.

But the fact that wealthy elite and corporate control over the Vatican sounds like a great idea to you only should enlighten us more as to the validity of what the Pope said regarding materialism.

Odd that you derive that conclusion from me saying that the vatacan should sell off their extraneous (but priceless) junk and donate the proceeds to improving the world around them rather than making insulting statements about the rest of the world and hoarding wealth like they're the only ones that get to do it.

If you want to fight poor, a better start would be with our own government, not the Vatican.

Red herring. Nonargument. (I also doubt you could provide any facts to support this notion one way or another.)

But, that's cool. We can corporatize everything. That way we can make everyone on the planet poor with the exception of maybe 1% of the population, enslaving the majority to the minority.

That has been the Catholic model for centuries.

Who needs that church crap anyways. See you at the salt mines.

Yeah. You life sucks, but since you can stare at a golden cherub on Sundays, it all works out for the better. Whatever.

:-offtopic But hey, weren't we talking about the inner search for meaning? :idunno:

Yep. Begs the question, why is the Pope looking outwards if inwards is so important? Why improve the church or the world at large when you can whine about the US?

 

[Cruentus]

Marginal. Ax needed more grinding I see. That's cool, completely ignore the fact that your not only way off topic, but that my posts were in response to your off-topic attacks. But, I can see from your last post that your preparing for some sort of battle that your not intellectually equipped to follow through on.

However, I guess I have to respond, as off topic as this is still.

Now, first of all, you might want to learn about logical fallacies before you start accusing me of them. A “straw man” argument is purposely misrepresenting someone else’s argument so you can knock it down. I didn’t misrepresent your argument. First of all, the mayor and the Governor of the state have both criticized morality and materialism on occasion, but that is irrelevant to my analogy between church artifacts and state museums. The thing is, I could get on here and yell about the mayor of Detroit and how he has the nerve to tell the people of Detroit that he wants to help fight poverty, or that he criticizes the moral decay, when he is such a greedy bastard for allowing himself and his employees to get paid a decent salary, and how he spends tax dollars for the upkeep of museums with millions of dollars worth of objet d'art (there, my French give you an excuse to call me a commie as well), when he could sell all of it and give it to the poor of the community. That diatribe would be equally as logical as your argument that the church should sell its objet d’art to eradicate world poverty.

Another thing, where do you get off saying that “the Pope knows nothing about U.S. society”? You have nothing to back this claim, but you sure as well have admitted that you know nothing of the Catholic church other then your own insular perception. When you prove or even provide an argument with evidence to support the idea that the “Pope knows nothing about U.S. society,” then we can talk about how 2 wrongs don’t make a right, and that if it is wrong for the Pope to criticize a society that he knows little about, then it is certainly wrong for you to criticize a religion that you know little about.

Now, do you want to know WHY just doling out some cash to the poor is not going to eradicate poverty? The problem with poverty isn’t as shallow as, “Poor people ain’t got no doe,” The problem is structural. There are structural problems with capitalism that creates poverty, as well as there are structural problems with Global trade laws that prevent countries from getting ahead, as well as there are structural problems with other countries in their government systems that also creates poverty (especially in the third world). If we went to a country like, lets say, Indonesia, and gave everyone a million in American dollars, within a year or less the government of Indonesia would be richer, and many of its people would be impoverished all over again. The Church can’t do anything about these structural problems by selling their artifacts, but they can by preaching morality and ethics. Also, the idea of “give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day; teach him to fish, and he’ll eat for a lifetime” also applies here as well. Through the work of missionaries, the church is trying to teach the people of the 3rds world how to fish, despite the oppressive regimes they are under. For some sources on understanding poverty, read, “Framework for understanding Poverty” By Ruby Payne, or “The working Poor: Invisible America” By David Shipler, or “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations” by David Landes to start. The one consistent thing you’ll find is that the answer to poverty isn’t “Give the poor some money,” and the problems go way beyond that. But, hey, Shipler is only a Pulitzer Prize winner and Landes is only a Harvard Professor, so they must all be idiots anyways.

But, despite everything I am saying, I like your attitude of, “If it don’t effect me none, then it must not be important.” “I don’t think the Catholic Church or any of its objec d’art is important, or that anyone else’s culture or history matters, so F-em’. Sell em’ off and rip em’ down. That’s the ‘merican F-in way, dammit!” Also, don’t forget, “Why improve the church or the world when you can ‘whine’ about the U.S.” Nice. Well, says you, not me. And people wonder why other countries think American’s are arrogant. Or, perhaps, the Pope was just being “unpatriotic.”

But that’s cool, dude. Don’t worry about educating yourself, reading about history, or providing any evidence to your conjectures, or providing a logical argument to support your ideas. Just keep attacking the Catholic Church with no basis because they must be the problem.

So…ready to go back on topic again, on do you want to continue to criticize my faith? Maybe if you were a little bit less critical of my religion, then maybe I’d be a little nicer to you.

 

[Jay Bell]

I don't want this to turn into a religious debate....I'm just curious of people's opinions of what the Pope has said.

Thanks, Paul for trying to keep things on track. I guess I should have known better, eh?

 

[Marginal]

blah blah blah... But, I can see from your last post that your preparing for some sort of battle that your not intellectually equipped to follow through on.

Yet more personal attacks. Yawn.

However, I guess I have to respond, as off topic as this is still.

There are PM's you know. Email too.

Now, first of all, you might want to learn about logical fallacies before you start accusing me of them. A “straw man” argument is purposely misrepresenting someone else’s argument so you can knock it down.

Yep. This is also what you did.

That diatribe would be equally as logical as your argument that the church should sell its objet d’art to eradicate world poverty.

My arguement was that you can't attack a culture's materialism when you're blatantly materialistic yourself. See? I know what strawman means just fine. You're using it again.

Another thing, where do you get off saying that “the Pope knows nothing about U.S. society”? You have nothing to back this claim, but you sure as well have admitted that you know nothing of the Catholic church other then your own insular perception.

Red herring.

When you prove or even provide an argument with evidence to support the idea that the “Pope knows nothing about U.S. society,” then we can talk about how 2 wrongs don’t make a right,

Feel free to prove that he does know what he's talking about.

For that matter, please feel free to prove that society is actually in any meaningful way suffering morally. (Though keep in mind that issues that restrict the rights of free thinking people simply due to a document compiled around 300ADC aren't proof of declining morality in my view.)

and that if it is wrong for the Pope to criticize a society that he knows little about, then it is certainly wrong for you to criticize a religion that you know little about.

I know plenty about Catholicism. I'm just not going to try harder than the Pope to support my posistion. If it's weak, then it simply demonstrates that the Pope's is weak as well.

Now, do you want to know WHY just doling out some cash to the poor is not going to eradicate poverty? The problem with poverty isn’t as shallow as, “Poor people ain’t got no doe,” The problem is structural.

That's nice, but since all I suggested was that they use the money on the poor, I can't really be said to have claimed that the Pope should be giving poor people bags of money at leaving it at that.

The Church can’t do anything about these structural problems by selling their artifacts, but they can by preaching morality and ethics.

Actually both accomplish about as much productive social growth. Catholic morality probably accomplishes less overall abroad in the long run. (The church has encouraced the spread of AIDS though their prohibition of contraceptives etc which has definitely caused more problems rather than lessened any...)

At least the money could provde support to establish the needed social structures. (Pity your myopic view of what constitutes charity prevents you from realizing this.)

Also, the idea of “give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day; teach him to fish, and he’ll eat for a lifetime” also applies here as well.

Yep. Kinda why I'm advocating a new teaching hospital over a box of Bibles.

Through the work of missionaries, the church is trying to teach the people of the 3rds world how to fish, despite the oppressive regimes they are under.

Among other things.

The one consistent thing you’ll find is that the answer to poverty isn’t “Give the poor some money,” and the problems go way beyond that. But, hey, Shipler is only a Pulitzer Prize winner and Landes is only a Harvard Professor, so they must all be idiots anyways.

Cool. Another strawman, and a personal attack. You're really good at knocking over points I never made. Huzzah.

But, despite everything I am saying, I like your attitude of, “If it don’t effect me none, then it must not be important.” “I don’t think the Catholic Church or any of its objec d’art is important, or that anyone else’s culture or history matters, so F-em’. Sell em’ off and rip em’ down. That’s the ‘merican F-in way, dammit!”

Actually all I said was that the wealth the church has been hoarding for centuries could be better applied to the world's social problems. You're just putting words into my mouth. Guess you have to prove you're smart or something along those lines. (That only works if you can avoid intellectual pratfalls like these unfortunately.)

Also, don’t forget, “Why improve the church or the world when you can ‘whine’ about the U.S.” Nice.

On the scale of productive things to do, criticising the US culture doesn't top my list. It's the same song that's been the refrain of every generation since the dawn of time, and despite that, things actually continue to improve. You'd think someone would make the connection that "better" doesn't equal "freefall into depravity". As far as statements go, it's pretty much the ultimate non argument. It cannot be proven, and the only way to even attempt to lend it credence is to offer vague comments or circular reasoning. Silly me thinking that doing something that's actually useful would be a better use of the CC's time.

Think carefully about this statement, "This are getting worse."

Now, is it true? Has anyone ever bothered to prove this? Does the fact that they cannot ever prove this give you pause? Along the lines of the topic, I think people need to ask themselves that before sauntering up to the poduim and loudmouthedly proclaim that the US society's going to come crashing down in 40 years. (My prediction, things are going to continue along much the same as they are now. Probably more social freedoms will be granted in that time, but oddly, things won't erode into chaos.)

Well, says you, not me.

Well, that's only partially true at best given that you fabricated the first half of my statements there.

And people wonder why other countries think American’s are arrogant. Or, perhaps, the Pope was just being “unpatriotic.”

Shame on me for thinking that governing the US culture wasn't the Pope's job.

But that’s cool, dude. Don’t worry about educating yourself, reading about history, or providing any evidence to your conjectures, or providing a logical argument to support your ideas.

Yes... That's the problem. I'm an idiot. Whatever.

Just keep attacking the Catholic Church with no basis because they must be the problem.

It is kind of ironic that you're complaining about the decline of the middle class while defending the Catholic Church when it was the protestant movement that made the middle class largely possible in the first place. France, a solidly Catholic nation lagged sharply behind England (which had the luxury of being able to ignore the Pope's army) in developing a Democratic government... Largely because Catholicism reinforced feudalism etc.

So…ready to go back on topic again, on do you want to continue to criticize my faith? Maybe if you were a little bit less critical of my religion, then maybe I’d be a little nicer to you.

Odd. I thought I was criticising a stupid, essentially unverifiable and invalid statment made by the Pope. If the Pope equals Catholicism, or if those golden cherubs do, well, SORRY. Didn't realize your faith was quite that superficial. :boing2:

 

[qizmoduis]

I don't want this to turn into a religious debate....I'm just curious of people's opinions of what the Pope has said.

Thanks, Paul for trying to keep things on track. I guess I should have known better, eh?

My opinion is that the Pope should mind his own business. As an American and an atheist, my life is far from "soulless". My response would be, rather than my life being "soulless", it is his life that has been meaningless, striving after a mistaken and basically anti-human ideal and institution.

 

[Cruentus]

I don't want this to turn into a religious debate....I'm just curious of people's opinions of what the Pope has said.

Thanks, Paul for trying to keep things on track. I guess I should have known better, eh?

Unfortunatily, I should have known better too. God forbid we mention anything regarding spirituality w/o it turning into a debate over religion, and God forbid we mention anything about Catholicism without it turning into a huge anti-Catholic slam-fest.

I also find it funny that if I were Muslim, Pagan, or Atheist, and a bunch of Catholics or Christians were being critical of my beliefs or my leadership or my religion, then people would be all over it screaming intolerance and religious persecution. But since the slams are only against the “evil papacy,” then I guess it’s all o.k. Those damn Catholics shouldn’t deserve tolerance anyways.

Also, everyone, keep in mind that I wouldn't be "debating" anything if A-holes with little self-control could refrain from slamming on my religion for 2 seconds and stick with the supposed topic.

Marginal Chopping up someone's post into little bitty pieces and responding with 1-phrase answers is fairly obtuse. But you continue to do so, as it suits your argument perfectly. As your comments continue to degenerate, your ethnocentric, egocentric, bigoted, and intolerant worldview continues to show through. Apparently, if it ain't a WASP, then it ain't right. That's O.K., as an Irish-Catholic, I'll be proud to be racked up in the same category as them gays, blacks, and Jews, in your mind. So far, you've accused the Catholic Church of harboring an army, enforcing feudalism, spreading aids, and hording the worlds wealth, among other broad and false accusations. Yet, I am sure you'll argue that you're not a bigot. Yet, your sweeping generalizations is about the logical parallel to saying that "the blacks" are harboring armies with gangs and political groups, crowding "our" jails with "their crime," spreading aids with drug use and promiscuity, and trying to get "our" money with "dem affirmative action laws." Then, to boot, you claim to not be slamming on my religion, which is like someone asserting the above statements about "blacks" then claiming to not be racist. Hey, if it walks like a bigot, sounds like a bigot, what do you expect me to think? But that's O.K., because for some reason it is perfectly acceptable to be bigoted towards the "evil papacy" in our culture. :shrug:

I love comments like this though:

I'm just not going to try harder than the Pope to support my posistion. If it's weak, then it simply demonstrates that the Pope's is weak as well.

Sure...make a false claim about the Popes knowledge/education to support your assertion that you don't have to educate yourself, or provide evidence or logic to support your assertions, and then claim that your weak arguements somehow make the Popes assertions weak as well. Sounds like a convienent cop out to actually having to learn anything. And you claim to be logical? Oh...and still waiting for that straw-man arguement to appear. Just because you alter your arguement as you continue to look stupid, that doesn't mean that I have created a straw man. Besides, even with your re-articulated assertion that, "you can't attack materialism when your blatently materialistic," my analogy still applies just fine; have you seen the Mayor's or Governor's house? Also, "Red Herring" is when irrelevent material is brought into the discussion to divert attention from the real arguement. Still waiting to see me do that. Just because you yell out "red herring" with no explaination as to how, that doesn't make it so.

So, what do we have so far from you? We have religious intolerance and bigotted assertions with illogical arguements and no evidence, backed with the crazy notion that "I don't need to provide a logical arguement or evidence for my accusations because I don't think that someone else is doing so." But that's cool, man; I wasn't using my rights to be met with religious tolerance anyways. "White power."

 

[Cruentus]

My opinion is that the Pope should mind his own business. As an American and an atheist, my life is far from "soulless". My response would be, rather than my life being "soulless", it is his life that has been meaningless, striving after a mistaken and basically anti-human ideal and institution.

I am seeing a trend here, one that Ender articulated in his post. People seem to be intent on attacking the source rather then discussing what was said. So, you have a psychological aversion to Christianity, or Catholicism? Didn’t Jay originally say that he wanted to discuss the ideas rather then having a religious debate? This means discussing what was said rather then who said it. This means refraining from your unfounded opinions regarding the person or institution from which the comments came. This means not taking a broad assertion (such as ‘materialism is soulless’) as a personal attack (I think this means that he says I am soulless’).

Ah, but what The F do I know? It’s way more fun to slam a religion when the opportunity arises. Never mind…carry on, carry on.

 

[psi_radar]

When I said that you have to buy the premise that "there is a God," I am refering to an anthropomorphic creator. In your definition, "God" is more like an energy with no plan (meaning ruled by chaos). I think in your definition, having a "purpose" in life is obsolete. Am I correct in saying this? It's kind of Taoist, and Taoist's (like Buddhists) are not concerned about "purpose."
:asian:

Correct! Though the term chaos is a little absolute; things tend to fall into patterns like the dirt moved from a stone on the bottom of a riverbed. Now you see where I'm coming from. Therefore my spiritual quest is for a sort of confluence with this energy rather than the role of someone in a grand plan.

So my point is, depending on where you're coming from and what you believe, "spirituality" can be drastically different.

For example, my wife is from a long line of scientists. They're atheists. To them, the quest for mystical meaning is purposeless, when you could be dealing with real, unimagined issues here. They look upon organized religion as a whole as a racket for its leaders and an escape for its followers.

Faith isn't easy to come by. Either you have it or you don't; acquiring it takes a huge mental leap. For those who don't have it, thinking about it is a waste of time.

That doesn't mean atheists aren't good and compassionate, with sound morals. Indeed, the fact that they act as they do without fear of eternal consequences is a testament to their good nature. So do we all need to focus on the spiritual more? Or on general self-improvement?

Edit: Or I should probably ask, which has more impact on society--focusing on internal development of spirituality or external morality, and are the two truly intertwined?

 

[Cruentus]

Or I should probably ask, which has more impact on society--focusing on internal development of spirituality or external morality, and are the two truly intertwined?

I'd have to say that they are intertwined. That's just what I think. I stole this from a friend of mine, but basically, you have 4 things...

1. Morals: Beliefs from tradition or religion or personal background/upbringing.
2. Values: Personal Beliefs
3. Ethics: Generally excepted beliefs in society.
4. Laws: Government regulation

Not all are the same, but they all have an intricate relationship with one another. Morals could have been influenced by others peoples personal values, the ethics of the society from which they came, and the laws that dictated the locals from which they came. Personal values are influenced by morals, ethics, and laws. Ethics can be stemed from laws, but is usually the collective values of the society. Laws can come from ethics, but can also be pushed through from values or morals of a few influencing the law.

Now, I believe that there needs to be some sort of idealist philosphy rather then only materialism to determine morals and values. If it is only materialistic ideals that dictate these things, then personal values will only go as far as "what's good for me." Society would crumble if everyone was only thinking about "whats good for me." The only reason personal values go beyond selfishness is when a certian level of idealism is in place, which then violates the materialists way of thought.

Plus, if you you buy the idea that there is a God who created a conscience within all human beings(as I do), then you also buy that no matter how hard you try, the materialist cannot escape a certian degree of idealism (as I do). This is why I don't buy the premise that "all athiests are immoral," a common premise that Christians want you to believe. I may disagree with them, but that doesn't make them immoral. It depends on what they are doing. This is because if I believe that the same God created the athiest as he did me, and that God gave us all a conscience, then we are both going to have some degree of "correct" values within ourselves (unless there is some sort of abnormality, such as with psychological disorders).

Also, I agree with you that "Faith" is a difficult thing in our society. More and more the tradition of science and reason supercedes religious values, and basically says "don't ever go by faith...prove it!" Our collective view, or ethics, also disregards faith. Laws are never made on faith (thank God). The problem that occurs is that people don't personally value faith anymore. This is ironic because just about everything that you know to be true inside of you, you take on "faith" eventually (read Freud and Nietzche and Pascel for more on that), yet it is disregarded in almost every aspect of our culture. As a Christian, I feel that this becomes a problem because people tend to ignore their own conscience. Ignoring your own conscience becomes a problem in my view because you can logically reason yourself into or out of anything, so morals and standards start to erode from there. People then are only going by there own worldviews (consious and subconsious), laws, ethics, and seculat traditions to determine their values. Standards become obsolete, and giving them moral advise is the equivelent to telling a blindman to find the yellow building.

Sorry. Ramble, Ramble. My short answer is that to truely have any standard of values at all, there needs to be some level of idealism (belief in something beyond the physical). Just IMHO.

:asian:

 

[qizmoduis]

I am seeing a trend here, one that Ender articulated in his post. People seem to be intent on attacking the source rather then discussing what was said. So, you have a psychological aversion to Christianity, or Catholicism? Didn’t Jay originally say that he wanted to discuss the ideas rather then having a religious debate? This means discussing what was said rather then who said it. This means refraining from your unfounded opinions regarding the person or institution from which the comments came. This means not taking a broad assertion (such as ‘materialism is soulless’) as a personal attack (I think this means that he says I am soulless’).

Ah, but what The F do I know? It’s way more fun to slam a religion when the opportunity arises. Never mind…carry on, carry on.

I have an aversion to mysticism and supernaturalism. Not just christianity. Christianity, especially Catholicism (being an ex-Catholic) are what I am most familiar with, thus receive most of my attention in situations like this.

But anyway, Jay asked for responses to what the Pope said, and I gave it, and you decided to blast out a diatribe about Catholic-bashing yet again. Perhaps I should've just restricted my opinion to something along the lines of "Uh...I disagree". That's not very elucidating, however.

This constant whine of anti-christian bashing is getting old. Christians are perfectly happy to trash the heck out of all non-christian viewpoints with impunity, but deity-forbid anyone dares to utter a word in response. The shrill cries of anti-christian persecution are deafening. I'm tired of it, frankly. Nearly as tired as I am of religious folk's constant clamoring about having a stranglehold on life's purpose and meaning. It's pathetic, and annoying, and off-topic besides. You have no claim on life's purpose. You have no claim on life's meaning. You have no claim on spirituality.

 

[Cruentus]

Quiz,

lets reread Jay Bell:

What are people's thoughts on this? I honestly don't sit around wondering my purpose in life...I live it. Juggling that type of question around in one's mind, to me, seems like a waste of time and resources.

I don't want this to turn into a religious debate....I'm just curious of people's opinions of what the Pope has said.

I bolded for emphasis. The thread is supposed to be about "What" the Pope said, not about the Pope, or the church, or about mysticism, or about how evil Catholics are, or about how stupid, bible beating, and unamerican Paul Janulis is, or whatever other crazy critics you would like to throw in. The thread is about "What" he said. We are not supposed to be having a religious debate. When you make broad slamming statements on a religion, not only are you off topic, but you are spawning the exact kind of religious debate that we aren't supposed to be having.

Just because YOU have a problem with Catholicism, or Christianity, that doesn't mean it's O.K. to hijack the thread to take the opportunity to slam on someones religion, because , well, ya just can't help yourself.

And to demonstrate the complete level of intolerance and bigotry that you are showing me regarding MY religion, I am going to quote what you said in your last paragraph, except I am going to leave blank the reference to Christian/Catholic/religious folk so you can fill it in with another group, such as "gays" or "blacks" or "Jews" or "women." Have fun.

This constant whine of anti-________ bashing is getting old. ________ are perfectly happy to trash the heck out of all non-________ viewpoints with impunity, but deity-forbid anyone dares to utter a word in response. The shrill cries of anti-________ persecution are deafening. I'm tired of it, frankly. Nearly as tired as I am of ________ folk's constant clamoring about having a stranglehold on life's purpose and meaning. It's pathetic, and annoying, and off-topic besides. You have no claim on life's purpose. You have no claim on life's meaning. You have no claim on spirituality.

Ya wanna know where your REALLY wrong. Your assessment that I have no claim on life's purpose, meaning, or spirituality. Bull-F-inS**t! We ALL have claim to those things.