Pope Worries About 'Soulless' American Life

[Rich Parsons]

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 accepted excepted beliefs in society.
4. Laws: Government regulation

:asian:

Mr. English Major

I could not resist.

 

[Cruentus]

Mr. English Major

I could not resist.

heh. What can I say...I like to give you options as to which word you'd like to use. :lool:

 

[Jay Bell]

*chuckle* Thanks again, Paul

Is it really so difficult to jot down thoughts about what the Pope said? Are people that really tight assed about *anything* to do with a religion or religous figure? I'm about ready for a Mod to close this...it's getting nowhere.

 

[psi_radar]

*chuckle* Thanks again, Paul

Is it really so difficult to jot down thoughts about what the Pope said? Are people that really tight assed about *anything* to do with a religion or religous figure? I'm about ready for a Mod to close this...it's getting nowhere.

Jay, when you talk about politics or religion, you're bound to get fundamental, unresolvable conflicts in beliefs. And just because you don't belong to something doesn't mean you can't have strong feelings about it--in fact, that might be why you don't belong in the first place. You elicited those opinions, and this is what you got. I wouldn't expect it to go very far, but we all might pick up a little something along the way.

You've been sort of mum on the subject, except for encouraging Paul every now and then. In your initial post, you stated how surprised you were at how much of the congregation were spiritually adrift. I'm not being snide here. You seem to have reached a comfort zone in how you live your life--have you ever made some sort of conscious decision or plan, or do you find yourself driven by an internal spirituality?

 

[Jay Bell]

Definately internal. I honestly have a hard time relating to a good number of people because of me questioning their "moral character"<?> I'm not guided by religious texts, though their philosophies chime in and help me keep a clear head. One thing though -- I didn't intend to come across saying that they were "spiritually adrift". I just had a very difficult time understanding how a room of people were all in the same boat in that regard.

While I do agree with you about "unlocking the fundamental" wave...we're all adults...if it's that difficult to put said things on the backburner for a two page discussion, people just plain need to learn how to relax.

 

[psi_radar]

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

Interesting, ok, I'm with you so far... with the exception that I believe that morals can be innate rather than nurtured--and the result can still be different than personal values. I think of these two things as the ends of the acceptable behavior spectrum. Morals tell you what you cannot do, values tell you what you should do.

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.

Ok...

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."

We can agree on this point too, if we can agree that idealism can originate from a non-religious or spiritual source, such as emotions.

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).

Ok, though this is a little patronizing toward non-believers.

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.

Actually, we take very little on faith in general. A better example for our times might be Alduous Huxley--perception is considered reality. Faith in a mystical presence is a leap of logic, because we can't necessarily perceive it. At least not all of us. Faith that a fork will pick up a piece of food is a logical conclusion based on experience and perception that everyone shares. It's not really "faith" in the religious sense at all.

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.

Conscience is not exclusive to the religious. Can you explain the following:
"As a Christian, I feel that this becomes a problem because people tend to ignore their own conscience,"

Why would being a Christian make lack of conscience in an individual or society more disturbing than to a non-religious individual? Do non-believers hold individuals to less of a moral standard?

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.

I guess we just have a fundamental disconnect here, unless you include compassion and love as idealism, and then we're right on the same page.
Thanks for the discussion.
:asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Interesting, ok, I'm with you so far... with the exception that I believe that morals can be innate rather than nurtured--and the result can still be different than personal values. I think of these two things as the ends of the acceptable behavior spectrum. Morals tell you what you cannot do, values tell you what you should do.
. . .
Thanks for the discussion.
:asian:

Psi_Radar,

In some cultures it is ok for the oldest child not of the gone through the right of manhood, to deal with any deformed children born into the tribe. This is acceptable cultural behavior.

In our culture this action is not acceptable.

Hence Morals being right and wrong can be culturally defined.

In cultures that have similiar growths would have similiar morals. Yet not always the same.

Look at the Victorian attitudes towards sex here in the USA, and it is not quite the same as in England/ Canada/Austrailia/New Zealand (* All English speaking cultures. *) Some things are acceptable and others are not.

Now, Individuals may break the mold and have morals, yet to claim no influence from their culture even a negative response to the culture woudl be difficult in my opinion.

:asian:

 

[psi_radar]

Rich, I see your point, though I consider 1 and 2 of Tulisan's continuum:

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

to be of a personal nature, not societal. Your example of the youngest child tasked to kill deformed children I would consider an example of societal ethics, rather than the morals of the individual. Even if the person was permitted and directed to do the killing, they still might be internally conflicted about the act due to their personal morals.

Just a different perspective.
:asian:

 

[Marginal]

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.

Boo hoo. You've done nothing but insult people personally who disagree on broad levels with the CC's stance on various issues. Perhaps you consider yourself being personally insulted or whatever, but I'm not buying your cries of discourtesy now when you're calling me a bigot, a moron, a liar etc from the your first response onwards.

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.

Merely a habit. (Much like your smug condesension and personal attacks I imagine.)

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.

Uh right, that's what I've been saying.

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.

Nice. Now we resort to libel. You hold that intellectual high ground dearly... *cough*

So far, you've accused the Catholic Church of harboring an army,

Accusation nothing, the Vatican had one of the largest armies in Europe during feudal times. It's in history texts aplenty, so I'm not sure why this is news, much less an unfiar accusation.

enforcing feudalism,

Also verifiable through study of history.

spreading aids,

Telling people not to use condoms is certainly going to do so, and has.

and hording the worlds wealth,

I beleive I've always left it at hoarding weath. Yet another intellectualy dishonest and lazy attempt to sully me rather than my argument.

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 dont' have to since you're simply claiming I've said things that I have not. I've made no attempt to psychonalayize you or presume on your thought processes either. This is nothing but a personal attack on me by you because I disagree with your views. I havent' attacked you. I haven't even insulted you, but you've done me that favor at every turn. I bow to your intellectual superiority, honesty and tolerance.

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.

The problem always was that my argument remained the same while you tried to twist it.

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.

The potential dissolution of the middle class, my "axe grinding", my "bigotry". The fact that public museums and the vatican are very different things etc. You have offered plenty.

If I'm intolerant of anything it's that I'm intolerant of you and your attempts to intellectually bully people into silence if they happen to disagree with your little world view.

 

[OUMoose]

Just as a little sidenote, the Vatican does have one of the largest Para-military (only dubbed as such since it technically isn't a soverign country IIRC) forces in the world in the Knights of Malta and the swiss guard (couldn't find a direct link for this one, but there are numerous references). I'd have to find the actual numbers, but I'm pretty sure of that.

Anyways, please continue the flame war. :asian:

 

[Marginal]

Nope. I'm done.

He can take what I say and claim I really said that I eat babies for all I care. There's no discussion going on here anymore.

 

[Cruentus]

Nope. I'm done.

He can take what I say and claim I really said that I eat babies for all I care. There's no discussion going on here anymore.

Oh, so know your done. Well, F-U. If you blatently attack someones religion in a bigoted manner, then you should expect to be treated ill. I hope it was worth it.

 

[qizmoduis]

Quiz,

lets reread Jay Bell:



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.

Stop exaggerating. Nobody (or at least me, anyway) called you stupid, bible beating or unamerican. The biggest problem with your objection, however, is that the Pope was making a religious statement, from a religious perspective, as head of a world-spanning religion. It's rather difficult to criticize or comment on what he said without addressing the religious aspects.

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.

Oh please! This kind of nonsense should be made a corollary to Godwin's law. Now you're trying to tell me that criticizing a religion is bigotry? Especially a religon that I grew up in? Give me a break. A religon, first of all, is not an ethnic group. It is a set of beliefs around which is wrapped an institution designed to enforce and promulgate those beliefs. It's a power structure. It's a shadow-government in many ways. In many areas of the world, religious power structures have MORE power than governments. But you want religions and religious beliefs and the behavior of religious people to be off-limits to criticism. That's crap.

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.

You misread. Or I wasn't clear enough. It is a common claim of many religious leaders that their ways/beliefs/practices are the only ways in which a person's life can have purpose and meaning. That is what I have a problem with. I can't begin to count how many times some well-meaning evanglizer has told me that my life has no meaning or purpose, or that I can't be a moral person, since I'm an atheist. And I don't go around telling people that I'm an atheist either. People find out because they start telling me how great their church, or group, or whatever is and try to get me to go. They tell me, right to my face, that I'm immoral, or evil, or unamerican. They tell me I'll go to hell, or that I should be arrested, or that my daughter should be taken away from me. They tell me that I'm sick. This is the reaction that I get, 9 times out of 10.

You aren't one of those people, which is a refreshing change from the norm I've experienced. It's just too bad that you keep reading persecution and bigotry into what should be addressed as valid criticism in most cases. I understand that you don't like my attitude towards mysticism and supernaturalism, but accusing me of bigotry is really beyond the pale.

In any case, if I did take this off-topic, I apologize. But don't expect me to suddenly agree with everything you say. Later on, I'll see if I can address the Pope's specific comments without saying anything that will ruffle your feathers too much.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Gentlemen....

I just skimmed this thread, so this ones 'generic'

Cool it down. This isn't a religeus free-for-all.

 

[Cruentus]

Qizmoduis,

Listen, I have never had problems with debating, or had problems with people having personal opinions about why they don't want to follow (or "believe in") a particular religion. I think you know this about me from previous threads. Catholicism has come up in many threads before this one, and has almost always been met by objection of some kind. Not a big deal. My problem with many of the comments that have been said in this thread is that they have been very discriminatory (collectively, not just by you, and no, not ALL your comments were that way). There are ways to critique something without bashing someones faith or beliefs. I know you know this, because we've had the religious discussion before, and I don't remember either one of us "bashing" each other during it, even if we disagree with each others philosophy.

The second problem is that this thread isn't really supposed to be about the Catholic Church, it is supposed to be about the philosophy regarding the idea of having a 'higher purpose.' I think we can discuss a philosophy (and even criticize it) without criticizing the philosopher. I know that as an athiest, you could offer a unique perspective on this philosophy.

A couple of last points, remember that your outlook on religions in general is just that, YOUR outlook. Also, I will say that I am truely sorry that you have had bad experiences with Christians in general. I know from my own experiences that bad experiences with a particular group could make it more difficult to have an open communication on a topic.

:asian:

 

[qizmoduis]

Qizmoduis,

Listen, I have never had problems with debating, or had problems with people having personal opinions about why they don't want to follow (or "believe in") a particular religion. I think you know this about me from previous threads. Catholicism has come up in many threads before this one, and has almost always been met by objection of some kind. Not a big deal. My problem with many of the comments that have been said in this thread is that they have been very discriminatory (collectively, not just by you, and no, not ALL your comments were that way). There are ways to critique something without bashing someones faith or beliefs. I know you know this, because we've had the religious discussion before, and I don't remember either one of us "bashing" each other during it, even if we disagree with each others philosophy.

The second problem is that this thread isn't really supposed to be about the Catholic Church, it is supposed to be about the philosophy regarding the idea of having a 'higher purpose.' I think we can discuss a philosophy (and even criticize it) without criticizing the philosopher. I know that as an athiest, you could offer a unique perspective on this philosophy.

A couple of last points, remember that your outlook on religions in general is just that, YOUR outlook. Also, I will say that I am truely sorry that you have had bad experiences with Christians in general. I know from my own experiences that bad experiences with a particular group could make it more difficult to have an open communication on a topic.

:asian:

I agree with you all they way, although we probably have different trigger points on what is considered "bashing". Actually I'd say that's pretty obvious.

Sorry if I went off a bit.

 

[Kevin Walker]

The Pope is not the only one worried about the current 'status quo' of American values and ethics.

In my opinion, America has become a nation of Soldiers, Lawyers, and Engineers (sound familiar?), in other words, the new Rome! The Romans fought alot, and the Greeks thought alot! And similar to ancient Rome, America demands instant satisfaction and immediate gratification.

I see this in the way Americans teach and practice the martial arts. They want, rather, demand to be blackbelts, have no respect for their senseis, and senseis tend to be underqualified and money hungry.

American Martial Arts students question the spiritual development provided by martial art training and demand just the technical and pragmatic techniques so they can make money in professional martial arts matches, then quit martial arts training when their competition days are over.

Yes, there are many fine Americans who do not fit this generalization, but I feel they are in the minority nowadays. Even though I am a good Roman Catholic, I am not an automaton and don't always agree with the Pope on several issues, but I feel the Pontiff is correct in this observation.

 

[TonyM.]

These would have been valid observations in the late '40s or the fifties.
This coming from a misogynist in '04 is pathetic beyond words.

 

[SMP]

I think the Pope should be more concerned with the Soulless priest whithin his "organization".

 

[bassplayer]

good god, I was going to write something when I started reading this, but this whole thread really did get off track. I skipped reading all of the flaming because it just wasnt relevant.

"The Pastor went on to explain that "all of us" have unanswered questions of life, duty, purpose, etc...and God is the method of the answers. This somewhat dumbfounded me....I looked around the congregation (HUGE) and wondered, "Does everyone here have life questions?" It bothered me to see all of the nods.
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."

Is what the pastor said THAT abstract that in general (to avoid any misconstruation here,) people are unable to identify with it? In looking beyond the scope of what the meaning of your life is, or what life on this planet is, you necessarily go into the realm of the metaphysical. I believe that since we have the presence of mind to debate such matters, then IMO it would be logical to assume that there is more to life than our mental and biological functions. Not that there is anything wrong with living it, I quite enjoy spending my time here to its fullest, but I also cannot accept that when I die, I will completely cease to exist. I dont get that in general, the science minded person is disbelieving of religion because of empirical measurement (or lack thereof!) Personally, my faith came through my study of sciences - science is only from a perspective of how, not why. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

To tie all of this in, "its the question that drives us." So many doubt the question's relevance or applicability, so many dont understand how it ties into morality. I'm not necessarily directing that at anyone in particular, because generalizations are just that. When taken in the general context, the lack of the question is why such a large percentage is so focused on 'worldly' things. Its not a bad thing to focus on your life and the pursuit of happiness, its a big part of what we're here for, but I also think that you need to look beyond as well. When I was younger I heard such things like God being the answer and never understood and just dismissed it as people getting a little overzealous touting their bibles (or whatever relevant religious manuscripts, to take it out of a specific religion's context.) But when I really sat back and asked the questions of myself, what do I think of what else there is, or might things I do here affect what happens after here, I understood why it has been said that god is the answer. A general answer to a general question Its not going to give you specific answers to the specific questions, those are for you to ponder and decide for yourselves, and there's no guarantee you will find those answers, either.
I think its the upbringing that is a big factor here. If parents arent asking questions of themselves, then it is possible or likely that the children wont, either. There are always the exceptions, but as a mass, this is becoming a trend, and I agree in general with the pope's assessment.