Pope Francis says atheists can be good

[Caliga]

Yeah, but Beeb, one Jew is worth like 10,000 Gentiles.

[grumbler]

For example:

http://books.google.ca/books/about/The_World_s_Great_Religions.html?id=wEjIX4FldtkC

This concise volume offers an introduction to the eleven "living" religions of the world: Hinduism, Shintoism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Sikhism. Three of these (Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam) aspire to universality, and the others are confined to a special group of people or countries.

As a side note, I would observe that your reviewer is incorrect about Sikhism, as I understand it; Sikhism does aspire to universality, though it hasn't had much luck in that regard.  There may be other religions there that aspire as well, but I am not sure about them.

I might also quibble about Shintoism being a "religion" (let alone a "great religion").  Almost all followers of Shinto are Buddhists as well.  I won't, though, as the definition of religion is so plastic as to make the quibble meaningless except maybe to its followers.

[Neil]

(confused or stupid association football fans often even mistakenly think that rugby and american football can't be football, because they allow the use of the hands).

That's pretty harsh on poor Jos.

[Martinus]

I agree with garbon in part, it isn't really surprising that something very small and obscure 2,000 years ago was the source for some stuff that's global and important today. That's just sort of how history works, and we can think of a lot of stuff like that and then usually pick out a lot of other things that have fallen to the wayside just by quirks of history. If the Persians had successfully invaded Greece for example it's hard to say if guys like Aristotle and others of the great philosophers would be celebrated in the West today. The Persians themselves were a highly educated/learned people and maybe the Renaissance (if we would have ever had a dark ages in this timeline) would celebrate rediscovery in the West of ancient Persian thinkers, who knows.

I do think the old religions that were replaced by Christianity and Islam were not well set up to succeed. I think one of the key reasons both Christianity and Islam "worked" so well is they are naturally evangelizing, and create an strong impetus in the believer to care about converting others, it becomes a mission. The religions themselves are also fundamentally "stronger" precisely because they are basically codes for being "good men" while promising only reward in the afterlife. The pagan religions promised rewards and gifts from random Gods in exchange for rituals and sacrifices and that stuff is easy to lose faith in when it doesn't work a few times and the guys with crosses are kicking your ass.

It's actually interesting to see the development of American Protestantism, which in many ways undermines much of that. American Protestants regularly believe God takes frequent, direct personal action in their lives. They believe prayers are akin to spells that work miracles on demand and all kinds of things that really were not part of early Christianity or even Christianity aside from the weird vein of American Protestantism. Now, that's not to say Christians weren't stupid and superstitious before American Protestantism, but they tended instead to be easily convinced by deceptive monks and such that "miracles" were being worked and there was a framework for this concept of miracles. Further, periodically the higher up authorities in the Church would preach out against that sort of superstitious bullshit, so while it was happening it was never fully accepted doctrine. For many branches of American Protestantism it's basically widely understood and part of doctrine that prayers can work miracles and do pretty much constantly and that any random event in life is 100% ascribable to God's direct hand.

A Catholic is claiming that Protestantism is flawed because it believes in prayer and miracles?

No, Protestantism is flawed, because it is a heresy of the one true Catholic Church. That's all.

[Barrister]

I agree with garbon in part, it isn't really surprising that something very small and obscure 2,000 years ago was the source for some stuff that's global and important today. That's just sort of how history works, and we can think of a lot of stuff like that and then usually pick out a lot of other things that have fallen to the wayside just by quirks of history. If the Persians had successfully invaded Greece for example it's hard to say if guys like Aristotle and others of the great philosophers would be celebrated in the West today. The Persians themselves were a highly educated/learned people and maybe the Renaissance (if we would have ever had a dark ages in this timeline) would celebrate rediscovery in the West of ancient Persian thinkers, who knows.

I do think the old religions that were replaced by Christianity and Islam were not well set up to succeed. I think one of the key reasons both Christianity and Islam "worked" so well is they are naturally evangelizing, and create an strong impetus in the believer to care about converting others, it becomes a mission. The religions themselves are also fundamentally "stronger" precisely because they are basically codes for being "good men" while promising only reward in the afterlife. The pagan religions promised rewards and gifts from random Gods in exchange for rituals and sacrifices and that stuff is easy to lose faith in when it doesn't work a few times and the guys with crosses are kicking your ass.

It's actually interesting to see the development of American Protestantism, which in many ways undermines much of that. American Protestants regularly believe God takes frequent, direct personal action in their lives. They believe prayers are akin to spells that work miracles on demand and all kinds of things that really were not part of early Christianity or even Christianity aside from the weird vein of American Protestantism. Now, that's not to say Christians weren't stupid and superstitious before American Protestantism, but they tended instead to be easily convinced by deceptive monks and such that "miracles" were being worked and there was a framework for this concept of miracles. Further, periodically the higher up authorities in the Church would preach out against that sort of superstitious bullshit, so while it was happening it was never fully accepted doctrine. For many branches of American Protestantism it's basically widely understood and part of doctrine that prayers can work miracles and do pretty much constantly and that any random event in life is 100% ascribable to God's direct hand.

A Catholic is claiming that Protestantism is flawed because it believes in prayer and miracles?

No, Protestantism is flawed, because it is a heresy of the one true Catholic Church. That's all.

And Catholicism is flawed because it rejects, when convenient, Holy Scripture.  Try to troll harder, Marty.

But I still want Otto to answer for his ridiculous claims that it's the Protestants who believe in the magical power of prayer, and not catholics.

[Martinus]

Well, it's easy to answer. One of the biggest advantages of the Catholic Church is that it is a centralized religion. This means that it can have an official response to a lot of stuff, and while folk regionalism happens, it is not besmirching the name of the religion as a whole, most of the time.

The situation in most protestant churches is much worse because actions of one crazy pastor very rarely can be censured by the central authority (Anglicans and the like are the obvious exception but then they are simply Catholics without a Pope).

And although the Catholic Church has its saints and miracles, these are subject to a very thorough scrutiny and, despite the impression, are not that common (and in fact the overwhelming majority of claims of miracles are rejected by the Church) - whereas in non-Catholic christian denonimations miracuolous cures, speaking in tongues etc. runs rampant. For example I have never heard of a Catholic priest handling a snake (except the one in an altar boy's pants).

[Martinus]

BTW if we are on topic, before you start going to churches again on account of this dude, don't forget that your place in hell is guaranteed

No it's not. All I need to do is to confess on my deathbed and there I go to the pearly gates. That's what's great about Catholicism.

[CountDeMoney]

BTW if we are on topic, before you start going to churches again on account of this dude, don't forget that your place in hell is guaranteed

No it's not. All I need to do is to confess on my deathbed and there I go to the pearly gates. That's what's great about Catholicism.

Nice try, cocknibbler.  Too bad all those spooge stains will give you away when Saint Peter busts you with his UV lamp.

[Martinus]

BTW if we are on topic, before you start going to churches again on account of this dude, don't forget that your place in hell is guaranteed

No it's not. All I need to do is to confess on my deathbed and there I go to the pearly gates. That's what's great about Catholicism.

Nice try, cocknibbler.  Too bad all those spooge stains will give you away when Saint Peter busts you with his UV lamp.

You, with your extramarital sex, are equally sinful.

[CountDeMoney]

Am not.

[Martinus]

Am not.

Yes, you are. Among the ten commandments, two cover your behaviour - i.e. coveting your neighbor's wife, and adultery (which the Catholic Church considers to be any sex between two people who are not married to each other), whereas mine only falls under adultery.

In fact, it's a question whether I even have sex at all - after all I'm doing what Pope does on the Holy Thursday, so I am just being Christ-like (while He never put His dick into a vagina).

[grumbler]

And although the Catholic Church has its saints and miracles, these are subject to a very thorough scrutiny and, despite the impression, are not that common (and in fact the overwhelming majority of claims of miracles are rejected by the Church) - whereas in non-Catholic christian denonimations miracuolous cures, speaking in tongues etc. runs rampant. For example I have never heard of a Catholic priest handling a snake (except the one in an altar boy's pants).

Pretty funny to see an alleged intellectual argue that, while the Catholic church asks its followers to believe in the impossible, it is superior to some hillbilly churches because it asks its followers to believe in fewer impossible things than they do!   

Two words for ya to think about for a second, before you say anything more that's so silly:  ritual cannibalism.

[CountDeMoney]

Am not.

Yes, you are. Among the ten commandments, two cover your behaviour - i.e. coveting your neighbor's wife, and adultery (which the Catholic Church considers to be any sex between two people who are not married to each other), whereas mine only falls under adultery.

I didn't say I wasn't sinful, just not as equally sinful as you.

[Josquius]

It really does seem Marti is turning back to the faith

It's a fair question altho the real danger isn't the catholic church. It's all those evengelical anglicans.

Except for spreading Aids and stopping abortion the catholics have always been pretty decent. Gotta love the whole do whatever you like then say sorry thing.

[OttoVonBismarck]

And Catholicism is flawed because it rejects, when convenient, Holy Scripture.  Try to troll harder, Marty.

But I still want Otto to answer for his ridiculous claims that it's the Protestants who believe in the magical power of prayer, and not catholics.

I would argue we do not reject Holy Scripture "when convenient", but instead that as a Church shepherded by many generations of professional priests who devoted their life to learned study we can elucidate doctrine that strays from "literalism" because of the deeper understanding of our faith. We can view stories like the creation myth or Noah as works of ancient literature, and we do not have to view the Bible as an all-knowing "user's manual" for life as many Protestants insist that it is.

I understand where you're coming from on the "magical power of prayer" argument. Yes, my Church recognizes miracles and essentially supernatural intercession by Saints elicited sometimes by prayer. But this is very, very rare. We have a very structured and organized organ within the Church to officially recognize these miracles. The overwhelming majority of miracles are deemed superstitious nonsense and are never recognized. Further, the Church generally presents these miracles as rare, powerful events almost always associated with advancing some greater purpose. By and large I am correct when I say the Catholic Church doesn't believe you can "pray" to get a promotion at work or "pray" to cure illness [aside from a few very specific miraculous events], nor do we teach that in the random world we live in that if you survive a car wreck or a natural disaster that God took a direct hand. We generally believe those are just simple random chance in a world that runs on its own devices.

Protestants ascribe God's hand in every good fortune that comes their way, and ascribe God's hand in every misfortune and consider it a "test from God." Now, I will acknowledge what Caliga said, I am not generally talking about mainline American Protestants, but American fundamentalist Protestants. But unfortunately mainline Protestants are a dying breed, the biggest religious growth group by far are the fundamentalist Protestants. That is who I am talking about specifically. Unfortunately their influence on the religious in this country is so profound that it has even infected American Catholicism. Something like 30% of American Catholics self-identify as biblical literalists for example, without understanding the grave error and opposition to official Church doctrine such a stance represents.

FWIW, as an individual Catholic I disagree with the Church's stance on miracles. I do not believe in them and I expect perhaps within my life time the Church will reevaluate its view on them. A lot of the miracles now I think just serve as convenient political excuses to beatify a recently deceased Pope. See the miracles ascribed the Pope John Paul II in the afterlife for example, I honestly doubt even the officials involved in certifying those as miracles really believe it, they just see it as an exercise necessary to exalt a beloved Pope.