The pope resignes...!

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by hollodero

Ehm... a nave I'd say, much like in "navy"...

Actually, I do not know if that "rats abandoning a sinking ship" phrase really is common in English. (In German, it' would be a moderately funny saying...) - Given the number of people leaving the catholic church, and all the scandals concerning abuse etc. etc. I'd say the catholic church is the sinking ship.

lol I know what the term means

And I thought you meant that; you seem to be misinformed.

Who's jumping ship from the Catholic church? Its not a sinking ship at all.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by XenoMorph

And I would Agree Its a sign we are nearing the Next Age... In which a New Church and religion will take over...... the catholic church represents the age of pisces and its 2000 year reign is coming to a close.

See now, what the hell is this?

If Catholicism is a sinking ship, then EVERY SINGLE religion is a sinking ship.

And EVERY religion is an ancient, backwards one. Catholicism hasn't "reigned," in centuries; just because it has the highest population of any religious sect in the world, doesn't mean it "reigned."

[hollodero]

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

lol I know what the term means

And I thought you meant that; you seem to be misinformed.

Who's jumping ship from the Catholic church? Its not a sinking ship at all.

Come on, be kind... I sometimes get lost in translation.

But why am I misinformed... it was mostly a joke from my side; with the "reality aspect" that in fact the Catholic church is losing members as well as reputation. At least in the western world.

[SunsetBengal]

Bump, so Storm can find this..

[Storm]

Originally Posted by SunsetBengal

Bump, so Storm can find this..

My bad I was looking in the wrong forum, I was looking in the religious forum

Wait! You can quit? ~ Jesus

[THEBURG]

Originally Posted by XenoMorph

Now the True pope may claim his spot upon the satin throne




Because no man should have the power to tell others how to live their lives.

What's that job pay, and is it union, I won't work if it isn't union.

[Storm]

I did Nazi this coming

[NDfanatic]

I had a difficult time fully supporting Benedict, and so the news of his resignation is not that heartbreaking to me personally, but as a Catholic, I am following very closely who will step up and replace him.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

God bless my German Shepherd, Pope Benedict XVI! I am saddened by his decision to resign but I totally understand his rationale for doing so. Benedict is 85, frail, and I think he is a very practical man who wants to spare the Church the suffering Pope John Paul II the Great went through. In the present day, the Church needs strong leadership and Benedict trusts God to find a successor who is not so frail. It's a sad thing to see Benedict's body begin to crumble even though his mind is sharper than ever.

This pope's books, encyclicals, and homilies have helped me grow in my faith because he is a teacher above all. I've been personally blessed to learn from Benedict, John Paul II, John Paul I, and Paul VI, men of God who served Our Lord and His Church to the best of their ability.

Let's pray for a wonderful successor to Pope Benedict XVI. I have my favorite candidates myself but it's the Holy Spirit Who selects, not me. Thanks be to God.

[HarleyDog]

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

And EVERY religion is an ancient, backwards one. Catholicism hasn't "reigned," in centuries; just because it has the highest population of any religious sect in the world, doesn't mean it "reigned."

Are you sure? I think I remember watching something on History channel (or one of those stations) mentioning the Muslim faith has the most followers, or has a growth rate so fast it will have before long?

[hollodero]

Originally Posted by HarleyDog

Are you sure? I think I remember watching something on History channel (or one of those stations) mentioning the Muslim faith has the most followers, or has a growth rate so fast it will have before long?

Well, having followers isn't necessarily the same than "reigning", he's right there.
Nevertheless, I feel that this "reigning" aspect has little to do with the particular faith or religion in a region, but with the extent of wealth and education there (with the US as a bit of exception I never really understood). Muslim faith is powerful for it mostly is common in less wealthy regions (just like Christianity in Latin America). But that's because of the regions, not because of the particular religion.

And these "growth rates" might have to do with actual birth rates too.

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by HarleyDog

Are you sure? I think I remember watching something on History channel (or one of those stations) mentioning the Muslim faith has the most followers, or has a growth rate so fast it will have before long?

Actually, this article in Wikipedia says Christianity is the largest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...us_populations

That was a surprise to me. I always thought there were more Bhuddists or Hindus. Be that as it may, it doesn't really matter. Or at least it shouldn't matter. It is a failing of religions to allow themselves to get trapped into the "size game": a feeling that the belief is more justified by the size of the religion. If a religion has to rely on the numbers of worshippers rather than the its teachings, philosophies, etc. to sell itself, then it has already failed IMO.

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by hollodero

Well, having followers isn't necessarily the same than "reigning", he's right there.
Nevertheless, I feel that this "reigning" aspect has little to do with the particular faith or religion in a region, but with the extent of wealth and education there (with the US as a bit of exception I never really understood). Muslim faith is powerful for it mostly is common in less wealthy regions (just like Christianity in Latin America). But that's because of the regions, not because of the particular religion.

And these "growth rates" might have to do with actual birth rates too.

The whole notion that religion should be connected to worldly power shows a flaw that has undermined religions (particularly Christianity) for centuries now. IMO it is the single greatest flaw of organized religions.

[Treee]

Spirituality is taking over for religion. Within 100 years I'm betting most religions will look to the population like Scientology does to us today.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

Originally Posted by hollodero

Well, having followers isn't necessarily the same than "reigning", he's right there.
Nevertheless, I feel that this "reigning" aspect has little to do with the particular faith or religion in a region, but with the extent of wealth and education there (with the US as a bit of exception I never really understood). Muslim faith is powerful for it mostly is common in less wealthy regions (just like Christianity in Latin America). But that's because of the regions, not because of the particular religion.

And these "growth rates" might have to do with actual birth rates too.

These are excellent points. Your comment about wealth and education is important because it is often in cultures dominated by libertinism, nihilism, and materialism where the Church is weakest.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

The whole notion that religion should be connected to worldly power shows a flaw that has undermined religions (particularly Christianity) for centuries now. IMO it is the single greatest flaw of organized religions.

That's absolutely right. Religion informs our conscience even with respect to political decisions but this does not mean the Church is a political entity. The Catholic Church in particular is ubiqitous to all political systems because the faith has flourished despite the political excesses of despots, emperors, and dictators.

[hollodero]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

The whole notion that religion should be connected to worldly power shows a flaw that has undermined religions (particularly Christianity) for centuries now. IMO it is the single greatest flaw of organized religions.

Hmm. I thought about that and I'm not sure if that's true under any circumstances.
What is a "religion", anyway, what constitutes it? It's not necessarily the "faith" alone, or the belief in a God that hands out rewards and punishments - these might be just instruments in explaining ethical and moral values, and rules for a community, merged with some kind of philosophy or faith that explains their existence.

Now these values and rules are not a flaw per se, and our western constitutionality, though in no need of a God any more, still is based on Christian values - which are, after all, wordly enough in their impact.
The huge problem with religions is not the "worldly power" per se. It's the dogmatic interpretation, the abuse, the oppression, the discrimination of other faiths, the hatred towards non-believers, etc., that is. These are the flaws. The ethical values of Christianity alone wouldn't seem too bad, and neither would be a worldly leader that is the reincarnation of Jesus... just sayin'.
A complete detachment from any wordly power is, in my view, not a strict necessity for a religion, for religions are not "unworldly" per se. If people would rather see religion as some kind of philosophy instead of some kind of excellency by belief - and if the values are not betrayed by abuse of power -, we might be just fine.
-- Not that I'm for it, of course! It's just that not every worldly power for a religion is automatically a bad thing. It just depends on the available alternatives (which, luckily, we have.)

(Btw. I'm agnostic to the bone.)

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by hollodero

Hmm. I thought about that and I'm not sure if that's true under any circumstances.
What is a "religion", anyway, what constitutes it? It's not necessarily the "faith" alone, or the belief in a God that hands out rewards and punishments - these might be just instruments in explaining ethical and moral values, and rules for a community, merged with some kind of philosophy or faith that explains their existence.

Now these values and rules are not a flaw per se, and our western constitutionality, though in no need of a God any more, still is based on Christian values - which are, after all, wordly enough in their impact.
The huge problem with religions is not the "worldly power" per se. It's the dogmatic interpretation, the abuse, the oppression, the discrimination of other faiths, the hatred towards non-believers, etc., that is. These are the flaws. The ethical values of Christianity alone wouldn't seem too bad, and neither would be a worldly leader that is the reincarnation of Jesus... just sayin'.
A complete detachment from any wordly power is, in my view, not a strict necessity for a religion, for religions are not "unworldly" per se. If people would rather see religion as some kind of philosophy instead of some kind of excellency by belief - and if the values are not betrayed by abuse of power -, we might be just fine.
-- Not that I'm for it, of course! It's just that not every worldly power for a religion is automatically a bad thing. It just depends on the available alternatives (which, luckily, we have.)

(Btw. I'm agnostic to the bone.)

Religions are collections of individuals who share common beliefs. To believe something is always an implied choice. There is always the choice not to believe as well. Even in the case of empirical evidence, sometimes people choose not to believe. This choice is an underpinning of all major religions. There are those with a certain belief and others who do not choose to believe that. This creates an "us" and "them" situation. I purposely did not phrase this as "us versus them" as most religions in their basic beliefs don't support this ideology. Most religions in the basic form would prefer to believe that "they" are "us" too, but that "they" just don't know it yet (i.e. the Allegory of the Cave).

This concept of choice is critical because you can never really force anyone to believe anything. Choice is the most basic of the freedoms. Sometimes you can persuade people of things, but you cannot force them to believe. There is always that choice. You can force people to go to church, but you can't make them believe what is being taught in the church. And religions thrive or die when people are allowed full freedom to act upon their choices with regards to their beliefs because the religions must demonstrate the "truths" of their beliefs in a competitive environment of beliefs.

If a religion entrenchs itself in the worldly powers of nations, it is generally an attempt to recruit all of the people of a nation or area to their specific beliefs. Such a church almost always believes this is a benevolent thing. This has happened before in history during the Dark Ages. The Christian Church dictated what the beliefs should be for most of Europe and those who chose not to follow those beliefs were branded heretics or atheists. This was neither good for the people nor good for the church.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by hollodero

Come on, be kind... I sometimes get lost in translation.

But why am I misinformed... it was mostly a joke from my side; with the "reality aspect" that in fact the Catholic church is losing members as well as reputation. At least in the western world.

I wasn't trying to be rude lol I was merely asking a question; and again, its not just Catholicism, its every religion in the world; people are dropping their faith left right and centre.

Originally Posted by HarleyDog

Are you sure? I think I remember watching something on History channel (or one of those stations) mentioning the Muslim faith has the most followers, or has a growth rate so fast it will have before long?

I was going to say, 2 billion Christians or so, with the majority being Catholic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...us_populations

Seems I may have been confusing Catholicism with Christianity as a whole, my mistake. From that list, it would appear to be that Islam is INDEED the most populated sect, unless it is further broken down into Sunni, Shiite, etc., then Catholicism would be the most populated sect.

EDIT: 'zona beat me to it lol.

With the expansion and growth of North America, Catholicism wasn't able to have an established base on every continent as it did for centuries with the Eastern and Wester Holy Roman Empire. IMO, the days that French and British colonists established themselves in India and North America, are the days when the "reign," of Catholicism stopped.

Just look at the amount of people in North America; your neighbours, politicians, sports stars, actors/actresses. How many are Catholic, and how many are whatever sect of christianity the majority of you guys are? All of these factors IMO cannot place Catholicism as a reigning religion.

That's all lol

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

Seems I may have been confusing Catholicism with Christianity as a whole, my mistake. From that list, it would appear to be that Islam is INDEED the most populated sect, unless it is further broken down into Sunni, Shiite, etc., then Catholicism would be the most populated sect.

I would say you would have to break down Islam into Shi'a, Sunni, and a few others I can't think of off the top of my head, if you are comparing it with Catholicism. Those branches equate to the branches of Christianity. Sunni would be the equivalent to the Catholic Church, being the largest branch. I've seen estimates of around 75% to 90% of Muslims being Sunni. That puts the Sunni population between 1.215 and 1.458 billion. That's still more than Catholicism, though, which has around 1.2 billion.

[pennsyltuckian]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

I would say you would have to break down Islam into Shi'a, Sunni, and a few others I can't think of off the top of my head, if you are comparing it with Catholicism. Those branches equate to the branches of Christianity. Sunni would be the equivalent to the Catholic Church, being the largest branch. I've seen estimates of around 75% to 90% of Muslims being Sunni. That puts the Sunni population between 1.215 and 1.458 billion. That's still more than Catholicism, though, which has around 1.2 billion.

Shi'a and Sunni was the first division of Islam, thereby most of the multitude of sects fall under these two. The first division of Christianity was Orthodox and Catholic and likewise, most Christian faiths would fall under these two; including Protestants would fall under Catholic. It would seem to me if you want to compare all of the sects of Sunni (which so not recognize each other) as one total you should count all the western Christian traditions as one, ie Catholic, Luthern, Methodist and all the other Protestant religions.

But regardless, most of the times I see numbers that indicate Islam is the largest religion they break down all different Christian traditions separately but count all the Muslim faiths as one.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by pennsyltuckian

Shi'a and Sunni was the first division of Islam, thereby most of the multitude of sects fall under these two. The first division of Christianity was Orthodox and Catholic and likewise, most Christian faiths would fall under these two; including Protestants would fall under Catholic. It would seem to me if you want to compare all of the sects of Sunni (which so not recognize each other) as one total you should count all the western Christian traditions as one, ie Catholic, Luthern, Methodist and all the other Protestant religions.

But regardless, most of the times I see numbers that indicate Islam is the largest religion they break down all different Christian traditions separately but count all the Muslim faiths as one.

I can see your point on this one, dividing Christendom by east and west would more accurately reflect the divisions in Islam. This would place western Christendom at about 2 billion, if I remember the break down correctly.

[Anderson_fan1988]

Originally Posted by Treee

Spirituality is taking over for religion. Within 100 years I'm betting most religions will look to the population like Scientology does to us today.

We can only hope.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Treee

Spirituality is taking over for religion. Within 100 years I'm betting most religions will look to the population like Scientology does to us today.

What is spirituality?


I feel some people say they are spiritual because they don't have the guts to say they are atheist

[pennsyltuckian]

Originally Posted by Storm

What is spirituality?


I feel some people say they are spiritual because they don't have the guts to say they are atheist

Exactly what it is varies from person to person, which is part of what people like about it. What seems to be the common thread is believing in a higher power but not organized religion.

The higher power part is where the variations are. Some feel it's just a Jungian synchronicity idea the other extreme is to believe there is a thinking god or gods but organized religion is just a man made construct.