This was regarding climate change argument recently, but more generally relates to the desire of indivduals in todays society wanting everything and needing everything.

"Once we lose our humility, and become enthralled with the possibility of limitless mastery over everything, we inevitably end up harming society and the environment".

Bravo to Pope Francis.

I hate the Pope and everything he stands for.

A free season ticket for Ibrox will be winging its way to you as we speak.

Not surprised to see the Pope preaching about harming society, Catholicism is well accustomed to that kind of behaviour. Sure, Francis may not have Ratsinger's paralysing stupidity and ignorance, but I'm sorry, I cannot take a man seriously who bemoans "limitless mastery over everything" whilst residing in the fucking Vatican, and believeing in an invisible superman in the sky, whom we should all worship or else live in sin.

Well, I think @wadfalkirk got it spot on.

I'm not Catholic, I'm not even remotely religious, and by all accounts according to them, I'm going straight to hell. But religion is like politics and ideology - everyone has their own beliefs, and no single definition is entirely accurate. For all religions, it's neither entirely good, or entirely bad. To suggest either can oversimplify things.

Pope Frances seems to preach a more tolerable stance and we have to contextualise it like you say, Shakespeare's Sister. It's naive to think we can suddenly destroy all religion in one fell swoop considering it is deeply embedded in the cultural fabric of many societies for thousands of years. If one person had the power to destroy religion tomorrow, they'd be doing more damage than the Pope would ever do - it's fair to say that not every Catholic is evil, and a good proportion of the 1.2 billion are very decent human beings who aren't as traditional as the stereotype suggest, and lo and behold, some are better people than some anti-religious folk and to take something away which they strongly believe in is very dangerous indeed. I don't think the Pope's a bad man - his beliefs are vastly different from other archaic Catholics, and its a bit simplistic to suggest everyone involved is a very bad man.

As ever, its about taking baby steps towards a more rational point of view, and we should admire Pope Francis's stance. If he can mould the Catholic Church into something a bit more compassionate rather than the blight it causes with current archaic practices, then we are going in the right direction in accomodating a world that is good for both religious and non-religious folk, bringing everyone with diverse views closer together, and providing a greater understanding of ourselves. That's far more radical and progressive than any hardline oppositional stance from both sides. Again, it's all about progress, and taking it in view of today's context, it's a great thing.

The comment I quoted was in the context of the Pope in a war of words with Republicans (yes, Catholic Republicans) in the US, concerning the destruction of the environment. His opinions aren't any less important because of who he is. Take that quote out of context and it suddenly looks like dangerous Catholic propaganda where our biased stereotypical view processes that negative meaning (and I look as if I was possessed by the spirit of Herbalife!) rather than the context it took place in. And as a matter of fact, of all world leaders and figureheads, he's got it spot on the most regarding the environment. But if we are to take a stance that suggests "we hate everything he stands for" and that whatever he does we will "never take seriously" then we live with a dangerous mindset where only those who we agree with we will listen to. And as a result, that can only hinder society rather than improve it.

I wish Herbalife was here. He'd give us a good laugh in this discussion!

As much as I'd like it, the idea of ending religion of ending religion is a very complicated one. It's not like destroying a tangible thing; it's destroying an idea - the idea of a god. As long as people still believe in its existence there will be religion whether we like it or not. The umber of religious people is slowly declining, especially in northern Europe, which means that the power the various churches hold is weakening. The 'fear factor' and the influence they had is slowly waning as people turn their backs on them.

Religion is dying, but slowly. If people applied the same critical thinking to their religion as they did to other aspects of their lives then it would die a hell of a lot faster.

But the Pope is NOT a fascist dictator on the scale of Hitler - he doesn't exactly advocate mass murder and tolerance is key to his personal beliefs, you cannot seriously compare him to that. And if I met him I don't believe he would condemn me for believing the opposite of him. Catholicism is so ambiguous like every other abstract religious belief that it's impossible to define it as good or evil (that's the danger of it - ambiguity). But Francis's personal qualities provide a sense of legitimacy to his quotes. The system he presides over is not entirely one form of an evil narrative and his personal perspective on life hasn't always entirely relied upon him looking at everything through a strict Catholic prism. His background and work prior to becoming pope in poverty stricken areas of Argentina partly dictate his beliefs, his work in social justice partly dictates his beliefs, and relevantly, his own scientific credentials with a Masters Degree in Chemistry dictate his beliefs on this climate change issue.

You can't possibly extract someone's life experiences and good personal qualities simply for the fact he's in a position you vehemently disagree with. Now that IS dangerous. He's got a wee bit more credibility to his character than your usual run of the mill dictator. It's easy to suggest every Catholic is directly influenced by the Vatican and from a top down perspective, but it's the other way around and the influence is more of a bottom up process - this is Argentina, and South America in general, where Catholic influence is widespread in art, literature, music, etc. Of course, that has come from a top down implementation years ago but we would have to destroy the cultural fabric of those societies if we are to stop the influence of Catholicism, and that's obviously not the right way to go about things. It's waning though with a more globalised world, and the information intensive world we live in today is a great thing in destroying the dangerous concepts that previously lead people's beliefs - i.e. fear.

As for Auld Francis, his more tolerant positions may be a case of mindless obiedience for many followers as with anything the pope says (or any leader in general), but he has been very reasoned and detailed in his stances, and he's never simply quoted from the scriptures and said 'job done'. As a former teacher himself in Chemistry, he has arguably added to his respectibility by simply offering rational argument and attempting to educate the masses - something which I don't think barely any Popes have done. What he stands for is not exactly the same thing as previous popes stood for. This is an incredibly detailed 180 page encyclical which many followers have read already - it's not the usual pie in the sky nonsense we expect. If that's brainwashing, then every other form of education is brainwashing. It's never as simple as calling it an inherently evil organisation simply because of much of its putrid past. Religion can be a peaceful thing, and should be a peaceful thing, and very often is a peaceful thing, and that is the direction Pope Francis wants to take. Religion is not going to be eradicated anytime soon so we might as well back these stances.

I don't think I ever saw any of his bible bashing quotes. What did he exactly preach?!

Herbalife?

If you have a look in the 'Noel about the Liam pass' thread then there are a couple of quotes in there.

I think you misunderstood me and I don't think I made myself clear enough to be honest. I hate the pope because of everything being the pope means - I don't personally hate Frances although I can see how you would think that. However I do see his position and meaning in a similar way as I see Hitler's - the point I was actually trying to make. I am not talking about Frances' beliefs or background, I am talking about the pope. I said I agreed with what he said, this is not the issue - my point is that he will have to do more than make somewhat obvious points to earn respect as long as he is the head of a cult so vile as Catholicism. You seem to confuse belief with religion - belief is a personal, abstract way of thinking and religion is the organised worship of a superhuman controller, usually via a totalitarian organization. I am ok with belief, but not religion. I'm sorry but there is nothing ambiguous about Catholicism - hypocritical, yes, but not ambiguous. It is and always has been a clear doctrine with one underlying message: obey. It is based on trained ignorance and control and has been largley the use of ruling classes to create the most docile population possible - and this is what the pope represents. He is the descendent of the apostles and should lead the church. I wasn't suggesting the vatican controls all Catholics but that Catholicism is an organisation with a doctrine based completely on control, and that it is a key organization in continuing the existence of systems of social domination. Any inspiration you might find in culture might have to do with beliefs, but usually little to do with Catholocism - and again I'm not suggesting that all Catholic influence should be eradicated - but that Catholocism and it's core messages and methods of organization is something I am, as you say, vehemently against. Once again, I'm not suggesting that Catholics are mindlessly subservient to Frances but that Catholicism breeds subserviance to authority, whether heavenly or earthly. I'm not suggesting it's an inherently evil organisation because of it's past but rather because it is built on a set of horrific degrading and often plain evil beliefs - the vast majority of which are completely unsubstantiated. It continues itself and other power structures by playing on emotion and has been responsible for inconcievable terror and death for centuries. I think what you are talking about when you say religion should be peaceful and progressive is belief or spirituality, not organised religion. If you truly believe organised religion is peaceful and has a place in civillised society then we clearly have a massive difference of opinion.

You made an awful lot of strawmen in that post so I hope I have clarified the points I was actually making.