The debate "Religion is for those who can think for themselves they need some type of leader" was started by
November 29, 2015, 8:58 am.
21 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 27 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
thecries posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 10 arguments to the disagreers part.
thecries, Robert16, Mousie, WaspToxin, truth_or_ture, AlenaMaisel and 15 visitors agree.
TonganCaillou, Gabri_XO, historybuff and 24 visitors disagree.
1. how does saying hell cannot conquer the church mean the Pope is infallible? the quote you are giving is not even related. and even if that line did mean infallibility it was directed at Peter. it in no way says anything about the Bishop's of Rome. (popes)
2. it is not clear. there is no scriptural basis for it. no one believed that, including the Pope, for over 1000 years of the church. it got invented much later.
3. pope john XXII said it was a lie and inspired by the father of lies.
4. the Pope's only accepted infalliblity centuries later because they wanted to be the absolute ruler of the church (which also isn't scriptural). they didn't want a council to be able to overrule them. so they decided they were infallible so they would be the absolute authority. so the whole idea is because the Pope wanted to be a dictator of the church.
1. Jesus said "the gates of hell will not prevail against the church"
2. this seemed clear so the pope's dod not make a formal statement on it.
3. people like historybuff came out and started causing trouble so they clarified it by writing g it down.
conclusion: it was always a belief of the church from the beginning that the church is infallible.
I have in other debates. there is absolutely no basis for it. no one claimed it for over 1000 years of the history of the church. you think 1000 years of popes just forgot to mention that God makes them infallible. what about all the things the church has changed its mind on? if popes were infallible then the church wouldn't have tortured and burned people. they wouldn't have gone on crusades and killed millions. the church had committed terrible atrocities. if God is guiding his hand in these things then God is a monster. but far more likely that somewhere in the middle
ages someone made this up and it somehow got believed.
Historybuff's look at life "we're f***ed. lol
after death a bad God will not let us be happy like a good God will. that is what I ment.
Jesus said "the gates of hell will not prevail against the church" but jesus according to you was made up by a bunch of people hallucinating together, so give me you tons of proof against the pope being infallible.
and take a look at the state of the world. we're already f***ed. so that does little to refute my point.
if the Pope makes a ruling on a matter of faith you believe is incapable of being wrong. that is the defininition of blind faith. and the reasoning for believing he can't be wrong has absolutely no evidence, and lots of evidence against it.
well if God is bad(he isnt) were all f***ed.
the pope believes in evolution, I dont.
the pope believes in global warmming i dont.
I don't blindly follow the pope. I may follow the church God and the pope on certain things, but not blindly.
but you believe the Pope is infallible. despite the fact that no Pope claimed that for over a thousand years. so you do blindly follow what the Pope says because some other Pope claimed God makes his judgements for him.
also since there is no evidence god even exists, you cannot prove God (assuming he did exist) is good. therefore following a religion could be bad because God could be evil.
right, a wise thinker will not blindly follow everything a priest or even the pope says. a wise thinker will however follow God because he is all good and an all good thing will have you do what is good. a wise thinker should want to do what is good I hope.
if you are wise and a thinker, one does not need religion nor a leader/preacher to tell them how to live
the followers of Christianity are very much sheep. didn't the Bible describe them like that? I can't argue with how you were raised. but the church itself has its set doctrines and rules that they insist you believe in. you can think about it all you want, but the church doesn't change its opinion very often.
the main reason the church doesn't punish people is the rise of nationalism. countries took the power of justice away from the church.
and you're wrong. putting all your faith in a higher power is much easier than questioning things. the phrase ignorance is bliss comes to mind. if you tell yourself that God is good and he has a plan for you that will work out then you don't have to make any of the decisions or worries that other people have.
One cannot deny the violent history of the Catholic faith, but it has evolved from its medieval past
The church did use torture as a form of power. However, the church does not do that today. Any form of punishment in that since or an unusual form of punishment is looked down on by the church. Those who follow the teachings of the faith are not "sheep" in any form. Many of the officials in the Catholic Church teach on challenging the faith (at least that is what I was taught in Catholic school). The church teaches individuality and to follow the teachings of Christ. It is easy to point out the flaws of one's religion, it's much harder to believe in the church and its teachings
my apologies. I had just watched an episode of Vikings. it is not historically accurate and they did that. I should have known better. the fact that they didn't use that particular form of torture doesn't take away from my point that the church regularly used torture and murder to enforce their version of the "truth".
You appear to be correct. I don't see any records of the church having people crucified. They rented to behead, hang, or burn them before deciding that the guillotine, crushing heads with mallets and drawing and quartering were better methods.
If the Catholic church's goal was deceit, then why didn't they change the bible or write something more convenient instead of being called out by Martin Luther. Nobody really knew Latin, the church probably had the most access to bibles, all they had to do was provide their own translation if it was their goal. Sure, the original copies were in their hands, but all one has to do is hide, or publicly damage the copies by unknown arson or otherwise as to have no suspicion. If it was all made up by the Catholic church, then why have the original copy contrast to their interests? That time was their best chance at full control, so if their foundation was a lie, they clearly could have made a better lie
Teach me more about my church's history, when did they crucify people as a form of punishment? You seem to know more about our history than anyone else
ok, the Catholic church today kills no one. they have a few centre's ago killed people. but so have other religions. most religions have a point in history where they have persecuted other religions. Not many science principles that people taught right 1000 years ago aply today. so if the church agreed with the majority on science 1000 years ago, they are most likely wrong about it today.
both of your statements apply to just about anyone. people believed wrong facts 1000 years ago, not just the church. people were persecuted by many religions over the years, not only by the church.
except people in other groups are rarely crucified for believing something else. or imprisoned, or tortured or any of the other things Catholics have done to people who refuse to believe as they are told. the reason the church has stopped taking a stand on scientific issues is because it undermines their credibility. every time the church tries they end up being proven wrong and open minded people have more doubt about them. so now they do what they can to avoid issues that can be proven in a sad attempt to hold onto power so they can continue to deceive over a billion people who still might believe their lies.
historybuff and after many people left the church, vadican II happened, bishops thought for themselves and gave another choice for mass.
Catholicism is the true faith. the Catholic church is designed to guide people thinking for themselves in the way of Jesus.
the Catholic church if it's goal was to only have 1 thing to believe would have made a decision about evolution, and the big bang, global warmming ect. instead they leave it up to the individual to think for themselves on this. I think about my faith and ask questions all the time and think for myself a lot. saying people in a religion cannot think for themselves is like saying people in any group with rules cannot think for themselves.
very well wrote and very interesting
sorry I think that debate was supposed to be can't think for themselves. my point is still valid.
religion is not designed for individual thought. I'll use Catholics as the example. catholics used to do all services in Latin. the people in the church didn't speak Latin. they didn't want the material to be accessible to everyone. the only people who could speak it were priests who had already been trained to believe what the church tells them.
the very top down organization if the church is designed to suppress ideas. the church decides what the truth is and if you say different you are a heretic. and heretics were tortured and killed. in short Catholicism is designed to keep people from thinking for themselves.