Pope Palpatine who covered up child abuse sticking his nose where it does not belong

[blackrock13]

Well there is no doubt that attendence is declining in the US and Canada and its a real problem for the Church so if you want to soften this reality by seizing on stats from China and porer areas of South America feel free. I do think you are ignoring the fact that a huge number your peers, who used to support the church, no longer do so for an increasing number of reasons.

The number of Catholic parishes in the US has declined by 10% and the number of priests have declined by 30% since their peaks in the 1980's. This despite a reported increase in the Catholic population as more and more Catholics find the Church less relevant or become dienchanted with scandal and idiotic policy. In other words, while the number of Catholics has increased the number of practicing Catholics has declined.

http://cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/requestedchurchstats.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-11-07-church-main_x.htm

I have no doubt that the numbers of priests are in decline and parishes are disappearing, but stop concentrating on th Catholic faith and look at the place religion is playing. There are so many options in a market like the US, a hardline church like the RC is naturally going to be in decline among the less religious citizen. I'm no big fan of the RC church with it's interpretations of the scripture and of the way it's handled the crisies of birth control, abortion and the sex abuse, but I have seen first hand the good things it does in various communities/societies around the world an don't want it to be put under fire and sword as some members here demand.


If attendance is declining how do you expain the increase in numbers of 'Catholics' as claimed in many reports;

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&gs_nf=1....,cf.osb&fp=484105c7cdb2c5cb&biw=1177&bih=695


http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/new_statistics_show_u.s._catholics_increase_in_numbers/

You emphasize 'attendance' and I don't really care if you actually go to church on Sunday, as modern life has made changes in family practices/activities around Sunday and church, church attire is more relaxed, formal Sunday dinners are becoming a thing of the past and what is considered acceptable Sunday practices are in decline as a result of modern day thinking. That doesn't mean you're less Catholic or whatever church you follow.



We seem to be comparing different numbers

 

[blackrock13]

You have kids?

It is cute, but even Newt says something cute once in a while and he 's dangerous.

 

[Aardvark154]

There are very few actual Catholics out there. They will claim to be Catholic but if you actually question them on what they believe it is a different matter. Even my own mother who true green as she was thought the pope was full of shit and disagreed with the Church on so many issues as to make you wonder why she even bothered anymore.

Just today I was reading an article complaining about how most of the "Catholic" teachers in the RC school system are not really catholic
http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/02/24/losing-faith
[I don't pay for the sun, but copies of it float around and I am even more of a chronic reader than I am a chronic masturbator and I jerk off like a demented monkey.

". In Ontario, as well as most of Canada, state-funded Catholic education is generally about as Catholic as an Orange Lodge meeting in East Belfast. "
"They are divorced, gay, abort and use contraceptives, live together, never attend mass, reject Catholic teaching, are indifferent or even hostile to the religion they are supposed to be part of."

Perhaps you miss the point that the people are the Roman Catholic Church. And indeed that denomination is changing.

 

[dreamblade]

You have kids?

It is cute, but even Newt says something cute once in a while and he 's dangerous.

None that I know of.

The problem with religious debate is that there is never any winners. You have both sides arguing their contempt for each other, never realising the bigger picture: Some feel a relationship with the divine, some don't. As long as neither camp limits access to healthcare/services, or freedom guaranteed by our country, who cares?

The truth is that the human experience is incredibly diverse. Some need a book to help with their moral compass, some don't. Is there really need to insult the other side?

Now yes, Ratzinger and his church are not my favourite people, and I was raised Catholic. His stance on invitro is but another example of a group that doesn't understand technology and tries hard to hold onto a paradigm that has shifted 30+ years ago. But to paint all of its followers with the same brush, as whitewaterguy did, is a disservice to yourself. Also, calling all atheists directionless sociopaths ends up doin the same thing. In both cases, you alienate some truly wonderful and insightful people.

Some things can be answered by science, some cannot (as of yet). For the latter, as long as we don't stop asking questions, why hate?

 

[blackrock13]

None that I know of.

The problem with religious debate is that there is never any winners. You have both sides arguing their contempt for each other, never realising the bigger picture: Some feel a relationship with the divine, some don't. As long as neither camp limits access to healthcare/services, or freedom guaranteed by our country, who cares?

The truth is that the human experience is incredibly diverse. Some need a book to help with their moral compass, some don't. Is there really need to insult the other side?

Now yes, Ratzinger and his church are not my favourite people, and I was raised Catholic. His stance on invitro is but another example of a group that doesn't understand technology and tries hard to hold onto a paradigm that has shifted 30+ years ago. But to paint all of its followers with the same brush, as whitewaterguy did, is a disservice to yourself. Also, calling all atheists directionless sociopaths ends up doin the same thing. In both cases, you alienate some truly wonderful and insightful people.

Some things can be answered by science, some cannot (as of yet). For the latter, as long as we don't stop asking questions, why hate?

Many good points.

Some people need others to tell/suggest what they should do. Some people need a book, Self Help, text, or Bible to tell them how to make it through life. Some need professional help and a couch or comfy chair just to make it through the day; whatever works is okay with me.

I've had some on TERB claim I'm not comfortable with my religious beliefs. The truth is I'm not a religious person for reasons outlined on a couple of occasions, yet raised in the UCC fold, but do consider my self spiritual, for other reasons also discussed. My objections can go both ways for and against athiest and believers alike, no position is perfect. I have also been witness up close and personal to some atrocities committed by both camps and really can be disgusted by those who committed them or defend them. My anger rises when I read the sheer ignorance and hatred displayed by members like CM and a couple of others, who offer nothing positive/constructive to the discussion. i've seen lives destroyed by people just like them and it sticks in my throat and won't let it stand unchallenged.

My extended family pretty well cover the full spectrum of major religious beliefs and stances, my SO's family represented the Vatican very well, and religion is never off the table for discussion. We talk, eat, and drink, and don't really come to blows. On many points we agree to disagree and then pass the potato salad. I certainly don't/can't brush all disbelievers with a single stroke and likewise all believers, nor have distain for the same, just a select few.

 

[someone]

WRT the western world Niall Ferguson who is rather pro religion makes the point that the one place in the western world where religion isn't dieing is in the US. Part of the reason is that unlike Europe, in North America there is much more competition for souls.

A reasonable argument. This explanation is based on what is called the supply side model of religion, originally due to Laurence R. Iannaccone. I think Iannaccone and later supply siders do deserve a lot of credit for introducing some basic economic principles to the study of religion. However, the evidence for the supply side approach to religion is not as strong as they claim. In some data sets, it holds (although even in those cases, the direction of causality can often be questioned), in other data sets you actually get the opposite result. Thus, this approach to explaining the greater religiosity of the United States remains unsettled.

 

[whitewaterguy]

... but not wrong a-hole.

Those are only a few of the times I've admitted to be wrong that were easy to find, but i'm not going to waste time combing through my posts to gather any more, just to show how much of a loud mouth jerk you really are, something that many members already know.

You comb through your own posts far too often..and the posts of others as well...you really should get some professional help for your ocd

 

[whitewaterguy]

Yes adoption, damn spelchek.

If the post is wrong, although Aartie got my point, then it's now clear you're not talking about adoption, but it did put a different light on your infertile reference. There is a difference between having no sperm/eggs and just not able to conceive. So please expand on what are you talking about.

you should clean up your grammar..you still consistently write SUPPOSE when you actually mean SUPPOSED....are you Quebecois??

 

[blackrock13]

You comb through your own posts far too often..and the posts of others as well...you really should get some professional help for your ocd

When 'you' say stuff that is totally false and you can't remember shite, then it can be proven by doing a short search, why not. It proved you're a class A ass hole and a liar to boot for all others to see, pure and simple.

 

[blackrock13]

you should clean up your grammar..you still consistently write SUPPOSE when you actually mean SUPPOSED....are you Quebecois??

Now the liar thinks he's the Grammar Nazi, sad. Just a small note, there is no 'suppose' in my post you quoted.

 

[FatOne]

Perhaps you miss the point that the people are the Roman Catholic Church. And indeed that denomination is changing.

I miss the point because the point is so utterly false. The pope is the HNIC, the cardinals select the pope and the mundane folk can follow or fuck off. If the the people are the church there would not be such a huge distance between doctrine and action among the muggles.

There are some churches that follow your model, as I understand it the anabaptists do so, but the RC church, a church of the people. You be dreaming in technicolor dreamcoat baby. That is one organization is is all about the hierarchy. I know someone who is hard core RC, works with the church, goes on retreats etc, I should ask her about that. [isn't hard to find someone, I come from 2 RC families with 2 ex nuns, 1 who dropped nun training, the Christian Brothers expressed a non sexual interest in the old man]