• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Why do people like the Pope so much?

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I was raised Catholic by vaguely theist parents, and even though I self-identify as agnostic/panentheistic, I still kind of have a degree of affection for the pope. I guess it's weird, but he's a father figurehead, a symbol of striving for good in the world, of human cooperation on a massive scale, and there's a lot of intrigue surrounding the Vatican. He's a little grandpa-looking guy who wields incredible power, and upon whom an incredible burden lies. That's a lot of world (and otherworld) on the hands of one small, elderly man. I guess I feel compassion for him. He's a human trying to live up to the divine expectations of billions, not to mention his own.

They provide illusionary hope for a better future.

Yeah. Even tangible hope, every now and then. John Paul had some moments.

Nice info. I can't really wrap my head around this mindset, but I guess these SJ types have a valid perspective which is useful for something.

Someone else has already mentioned this being more complex than a temperament thing, but I wanted to add that I think it's actually very human in general to look to authority and leadership. It's not even so much because of security-seeking as it's a natural function of a large population, where triangular power structures tend to form. Because it's not efficient to have everyone disagreeing and holding the same level of power, power is delegated in growing stages to increasingly smaller groups. Even democracies and republics, with rejection of a monarch, typically have a singular figurehead.

Specifically in Catholicism, the role of Pope is as the successor of Peter, who Jesus appointed to be the founder of his Church. He is also, and perhaps most importantly, the "Vicar of Christ" - the representative of Christ in the world. So his importance is incredibly magnified for believers, who see him not just as a leader and symbol, but also as a simulacrum of Jesus himself.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It's not that I don't want to minimize them. I just cope with them differently, I think. And I try to understand them to a point. I don't keep my mind on the ideal and say "this is how things should be". Sometimes I just want to know how something came to be, in the first place. You could say that's my own way to the ideal, of looking at a problem, and hopefully learning enough to not repeat it. I could be wrong, but I think INFPs just want to turn away, and point to perfection.. knowing what's right is good enough. Understanding what's wrong is not necessary.
Interesting. I find it hard to imagine diagnosing a problem without some sort of good idea of what you want the outcome to be. Well, I did say I had my theories as to why Christianity has flaws. I think at least as much if not more about what is wrong with a system as how it should be.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'm sure this is true, for the reasons you point out in the past paragraph- unscrupulous people will always capitalize on opportunities. The objection against Christianity is that it was all justified by and in the name of religion, and so fostered prejudiced and negative attitudes in the uneducated population. Even though any religion can be manipulated, any religion which is that easily manipulated (and I have my theories as to why in the case of Christianity) is a bad one in my book since the purpose is supposed to be to cultivate people toward their highest good- whether that is virtue, compassion, wisdom, reason, etc. And historically Catholicism in my opinion has done more to push people away from that than toward it. A good religion should be both explicit and internally consistent enough so as to not be easily interpreted in the wrong ways, and vague enough in key ways to allow and encourage critical thinking and individual decision making.
I can't think of any religion that has not been manipulated in this way, except perhaps Buddhism or Native American religions, but I don't know enough to be sure. The misinterpretations come from people, and will happen as long as the human element remains in institutionalized religion. Same applies to dogmatic philosophies (e.g. Nazism, communism). I do think this kind of manipulation is easier in "religions of the book" where authority is vested in items external to the believer, like written scriptures and organized clergy.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I can't think of any religion that has not been manipulated in this way, except perhaps Buddhism or Native American religions, but I don't know enough to be sure. The misinterpretations come from people, and will happen as long as the human element remains in institutionalized religion. Same applies to dogmatic philosophies (e.g. Nazism, communism). I do think this kind of manipulation is easier in "religions of the book" where authority is vested in items external to the believer, like written scriptures and organized clergy.
Right. It's been true of every major religion except Buddhism, probably some forms of Hinduism, and some Native religions. Which is why I would classify all those as bad religions and the exceptions as tolerable ones. I'm generally opposed to religion for this reason- that almost all of them share the same major flaws.
 

Redbone

Orisha
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,882
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Well I know that the big thing was that he is from Argentina, but other than that, I don't see how he is going to be much of a change from the last pope. From the bits that I've read, Pope Francis has essentially the same views as Pope Benedict XVI.

I haven't had a chance to read much on him yet. He may prove to be a disappointment but it's quite common for people to be excited about a newly elected official. Nothing like hope and the possibility of change riding in the same vehicle.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
Right. It's been true of every major religion except Buddhism, probably some forms of Hinduism, and some Native religions. Which is why I would classify all those as bad religions and the exceptions as tolerable ones. I'm generally opposed to religion for this reason- that almost all of them share the same major flaws.

There are Buddhists killing people (Muslims) in modern day Burma. And it's more about politics and cultural differences than religion per se. There's nothing in Buddhism that encourages it. But there's nothing in Christianity that does either. Christianity's history of conflicts is a lot more complicated than "it's just a mean spirited religion".
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
There are Buddhists killing people (Muslims) in in modern day Burma. And it's more about politics and cultural differences than religion per se. There's nothing in Buddhism that encourages it. But there's nothing in Christianity that does either.
There are a lot of passages in the Old Testament which if taken out of context could certainly encourage it. And like I say, it might be largely about politics, but in some cases it is about religion, and in many more it is sanctioned by religion. There have been many more deaths in the name of Christianity and Islam than there have been in the name of any other religions. I agree that no religion is perfect, which is why I called the ones which were not particularly "bad" merely tolerable.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
There are a lot of passages in the Old Testament which if taken out of context could certainly encourage it.

There's a reason why it's called the Old Testament by Christians. The Jews don't call it that. It's their only Bible. Don't confuse the two.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
There's a reason why it's called the Old Testament by Christians. The Jews don't call it that. It's their only Bible. Don't confuse the two.
It's just one example. There are many others which are explicitly Christian. I guess it depends on what you take to be the core of a religion which is encouraging the action, but as we are talking about the Pope, and he is thought of by Catholics to be infallible, if he were to tell Christians that they should kill heretics and burn witches that would be a pretty big flaw in the religion. Infallibility of any human is a recipe for disaster. I don't know what all the popes in history have decreed, but I'm certain not all of it was conducive to cultivating people towards their highest good and treating every human with love and respect.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
It's just one example. There are many others which are explicitly Christian. I guess it depends on what you take to be the core of a religion which is encouraging the action, but as we are talking about the Pope, and he is thought of by Catholics to be infallible, if he were to tell Christians that they should kill heretics and burn witches that would be a pretty big flaw in the religion. Infallibility of any human is a recipe for disaster. I don't know what all the popes in history have decreed, but I'm certain not all of it was conducive to cultivating people towards their highest good and treating every human with love and respect.

There's nothing about killing heretics and witches in the New Testament. The anti-violence is so strict that it's difficult to follow, if you want my opinion. "Love your enemies.." "Turn the other cheek.." "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.." "He who wishes to be great among you shall serve you.." "Love one another.." These ideas torment me, for the fact that they're absurdly righteous.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
There's nothing about killing heretics and witches in the New Testament. The anti-violence is so strict that it's difficult to follow, if you want my opinion. "Love your enemies.." "Turn the other cheek.." "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.." "He who wishes to be great among you shall serve you.." "Love one another.." These ideas torment me, for the fact that they're absurdly righteous.
The New Testament and the Old Testament are both highly inconsistent and contradictory in a lot of places. And you seized on a particular example (which you incorrectly interpreted) and missed the point. I don't have to point out every single instance of an objectionable part of the text for it to be obvious that there have been points in the official religious doctrine as interpreted by the Church which encourage all kinds of negative things. You're just nitpicking at this point I think.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
The New Testament and the Old Testament are both highly inconsistent and contradictory in a lot of places. And you seized on a particular example (which you incorrectly interpreted) and missed the point. I don't have to point out every single instance of an objectionable part of the text for it to be obvious that there have been points in the official religious doctrine as interpreted by the Church which encourage all kinds of negative things. You're just nitpicking at this point I think.

You don't get it.

I'm the evil one.

Maybe others too. But definitely me.

People who say "Turn the other cheek"? Not very evil.

You blame all the wrong people in your criticism of religion. Your real enemy is humanity. And the human forces that use religion.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
You don't get it.

I'm the evil one.

Maybe others too. But definitely me.

People who say "Turn the other cheek"? Not very evil.

You blame all the wrong people in your criticism of religion. Your real enemy is humanity. And the human forces that use religion.

I don't think so. Technically since humans created destructive ideas they are to blame for them, but ideas are still destructive. Humans are not evil any more than they are inherently good. Humans just do what they do. But they create and perpetuate some pretty messed up ideas. In any case, I don't want to get moralistic and start blaming and judging people. I don't think that's the way to go. Criticizing ideas is productive because changing people's minds affects their behavior and quality of life. The root causes of any human behavior are mental notions and emotions associated with past experiences. Feelers focus on the emotions (and associated value based assessments) and thinkers focus on mental constructs. In general.
 

lowtech redneck

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,711
MBTI Type
INTP
It takes some time to forgive the genocide and torture of millions of people (mostly women) with whom you share a culture and religion.

There were 'only' tens of thousands (a large majority were indeed women) over the centuries, most of whom probably weren't witches.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I haven't had a chance to read much on him yet. He may prove to be a disappointment but it's quite common for people to be excited about a newly elected official. Nothing like hope and the possibility of change riding in the same vehicle.
If Francis sets the example for church leaders of true humility, compassion, and service, it will already be progress.

There are Buddhists killing people (Muslims]

And it's more about politics and cultural differences than religion per se. There's nothing in Buddhism that encourages it. But there's nothing in Christianity that does either. Christianity's history of conflicts is a lot more complicated than "it's just a mean spirited religion".
It's always about politics, culture, and often economics. Religion only provides a convenient and powerful justification, given how uncritically most believers follow.

There's a reason why it's called the Old Testament by Christians. The Jews don't call it that. It's their only Bible. Don't confuse the two.
Christians quickly disavow the Old Testament when called to account for the violence and oppression in it, but then use it to justify the status they ascribe to Jesus. They can't have it both ways. Either it is part of their scripture, or it isn't. Most rail against "cherry-picking" only the portions that one agrees with, in either testament. The New Testament may not have the same justification of violence, but it certainly supports sexism.

There were 'only' tens of thousands (a large majority were indeed women) over the centuries, most of whom probably weren't witches.
I guess that makes it OK, then.

(I wonder what the victim toll is now in the recent wave of pedophilia?)
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
I don't think so. Technically since humans created destructive ideas they are to blame for them, but ideas are still destructive. Humans are not evil any more than they are inherently good. Humans just do what they do. But they create and perpetuate some pretty messed up ideas. In any case, I don't want to get moralistic and start blaming and judging people. I don't think that's the way to go. Criticizing ideas is productive because changing people's minds affects their behavior and quality of life. The root causes of any human behavior are mental notions and emotions associated with past experiences. Feelers focus on the emotions (and associated value based assessments) and thinkers focus on mental constructs. In general.

I'm just pointing out the absurdity in being so passionate against a religion with directives like the one I pointed out above. The people you should worry about are like me. The ones who have trouble "turning the other cheek" and "are living by the sword", and don't want to "serve others" or "love everyone". I want to be that good, but I struggle with it. So do many others. Because we're human. Yet here you are thinking one of the great problems of the world are religions that try improve these strains in humanity. :laugh:
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
Christians quickly disavow the Old Testament when called to account for the violence and oppression in it, but then use it to justify the status they ascribe to Jesus. They can't have it both ways. Either it is part of their scripture, or it isn't. Most rail against "cherry-picking" only the portions that one agrees with, in either testament. The New Testament may not have the same justification of violence, but it certainly supports sexism.

Come on now. You defended Gnosticism earlier, so you must know how much more complicated it is than this "all or nothing" scenario you're pointing out above.

Christians look at the Old Testament in christological terms. The reasons they keep the old canon around are symbolic. It predates Christianity in the Talmudic midrash. Rabbinic interpretations that dug deeper and gleaned out symbolic meanings, instead of the obvious or literal. As a Ni type, I think you'd appreciate it.

The historical narratives are especially interpreted in this light. While laws are explicitly dismissed. Sabbaths, animal sacrifices, circumcision, "a special race of Abraham" becomes a symbolic "universal" (latin: catholic) race, etc.. They are truly different religions in all the ways that matter.

Gnostics took it a step further and couldn't reconcile anything. They actually believed the Old Testament god was evil, and Jesus basically ended his reign. Mainstream catholics couldn't settle with that, and still saw symbolic significance. Kind of like how you have to like "Anakin Skywalker" a bit, just to understand who "Luke Skywalker" is. ... Err.. Or something. :whistling:
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Come on now. You defended Gnosticism earlier, so you must know how much more complicated it is than this "all or nothing" scenario you're pointing out above.

Christians look at the Old Testament in christological terms. The reasons they keep the old canon around are symbolic. It predates Christianity in the Talmudic midrash. Rabbinic interpretations that dug deeper and gleaned out symbolic meanings, instead of the obvious or literal. As a Ni type, I think you'd appreciate it.

The historical narratives are especially interpreted in this light. While laws are explicitly dismissed. Sabbaths, animal sacrifices, circumcision, "a special race of Abraham" becomes a symbolic "universal" (latin: catholic) race, etc.. They are truly different religions in all the ways that matter.

Gnostics took it a step further and couldn't reconcile anything. They actually believed the Old Testament god was evil, and Jesus basically ended his reign. Mainstream catholics couldn't settle with that, and still saw symbolic significance.
I did not defend Gnostics, but rather pointed out the significance of the distinction between Gnostics and the Jesus groups that eventually became the early Catholic church. I might have much more appreciation for the figurative element in the NT if that were how Christians used it. It is they who more often favor a literal interpretation. Moreover, they haven't thrown out all the laws - I haven't, for instance, seen a repudiation of the Ten Commandments.

I favor the Gnostic approach mainly in assigning primary responsibility for spiritual development to the individual believer. I don't believe anyone can serve as an intermediary between a person and God, any more than someone else can do my workout for me. In this sense, I would apply a different "all or nothing" calculus to the Bible, and consider the whole of it, but only as one of many sources from which I might learn. The Bible is an interesting read (and yes, I have read all of it), containing history, poetry, fable, and more. The problem comes when people claim too much for it, fail to read it critically, and fail to consider other sources of information.

Kind of like how you have to like "Anakin Skywalker" a bit, just to understand who "Luke Skywalker" is. ... Err.. Or something. :whistling:
But I always did like Anakin. Luke couldn't plan his way out of a paper bag.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
I did not defend Gnostics, but rather pointed out the significance of the distinction between Gnostics and the Jesus groups that eventually became the early Catholic church. I might have much more appreciation for the figurative element in the NT if that were how Christians used it. It is they who more often favor a literal interpretation. Moreover, they haven't thrown out all the laws - I haven't, for instance, seen a repudiation of the Ten Commandments.

Go take that up with fundamentalist evangelicals then. They're the most strident about literalism. I don't want to be put in a position to explain their view. I want nothing to do with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical-grammatical_method


Modern liberal scholars are literalists as well, but they take a more "Discovery channel"/archaeological approach, and like to illuminate the context of the world or conditions surrounding the texts, and what the text was like for the people it was meant for (unlike fundamentalists though, they don't want to recreate that world. They don't really concern themselves with what the text means for us).
 

lowtech redneck

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,711
MBTI Type
INTP
I guess that makes it OK, then.

(I wonder what the victim toll is now in the recent wave of pedophilia?)

I never said it was okay, that's why I put 'only' in quotation marks....during its peak, it was much like the use of odious 'blasphemy' laws in contemporary Pakistan, or lynchings in the era of segregation, spread out over many years....an atrocity, but not on the same level as genocide or slavery. Equating the two results in an unjust distribution of guilt, and perhaps more importantly, obscures the conditions which led to such crimes, and consequently the ways in which societies and institutions need to be reformed to prevent such crimes in the future (and whether they already have-for instance, it would be ludicrous to single out the modern Catholic Church for its past stance against democracy or religious freedom).

As for pedophilia, its probably no more prevalent than in any other similar institution overall (though the sheer size of the institution makes the aggregate total immense), the crimes to which the Catholic church as a whole (as opposed to individual priests) needs to account for are the widespread cover-ups, and the institutional incentives for the same.

All I'm doing is noting that people should keep things in perspective and criticize the contemporary Catholic church for its actual crimes, and balance those crimes beside any good it has accomplished, not turn the institution into a whipping boy or scapegoat simply because they are an easy target on the internet.
 
Top