Dear Belly,

<<Catholic Church in my view mostly looks like a PEDOPHILES structure because it brings men who are other than natural men to its service.>>

If that's all the Catholic Church is nowadays, then so be it, then it is no longer a religion.

Any institution (just like our human bodies) degenerates over time, including those institutions that were initially set up for the purpose of promoting religion.
Once an institution no longer serves its religious purpose, it should no longer be presented as religious.

However, through having some Catholic friends (not clergy), it is my humble estimate that not all religion is lost in that church, not at lay level anyway.

Your propositions continue to arrive in the form of completely circular arguments, Yuyutsu.

"The result of coming closer to God is being closer to God, and ultimately, God"

Without the benefit of some external reference point, which you have to agree is spectacularly absent from this assertion, there is no entry point for any discussion. Substituting "Sydney" for "God" makes just as much sense.

More, in fact, given that I can point to the construct that approximately 100% of people would readily identify as "Sydney". Your unwillingness to allow independent identification of the key components of your proposals - religion, religious, God etc. etc. - renders any challenge to your ideas completely impotent, since they disappear into the vortex of inevitable circularity.

Not that this is a bad thing. Only a touch frustrating for anyone looking for some kind of rationale behind your defence of religious institutions who harbour criminals in their midst.

>>You too, like Belly, seem to buy the Catholic story as if all their current practices are religious. Why?<<

That is a deliberate distortion, and not worthy of you at all.

I do not "buy" any such story. I don't even believe that the Catholic church has a "story" that paedophilia is a religious practice.

Nonetheless, Christianity is indeed a religion. And the Catholic church - a Christian religion - has harboured and defended individual paedophiles within its hierarchy, an act that is aided and abetted by the requirements and rituals of that religion.

Could we not at least agree upon those facts, and move on?

Dear Pericles,

<<Without the benefit of some external reference point>>

Sorry, there is nothing "external" to God.

<<there is no entry point for any discussion>>

The entry point is that:
1) There is a way-of-life and some practices which some people find extremely important (often more than life itself) to live by and practice.
2) One cannot verify or understand the importance of that way-of-life without living and practising the same.
3) There are some long-standing organisations who CLAIM to promote this way-of-life and practices.
4) It is likely that the above claims are partially correct.
5) Some of the above organisations did terrible things.
6) It is agreed that the above terrible things are not part of above way-of-life and practices.
7) There are some people, like "579", who want to outlaw this way-of-life and practices (probably because they favour a different way-of-life).
8) There are other people, like Belly, who join such calls due to the terrible things done by the above organisations.

As a result, people who follow the above way-of-life (but not the terrible-things), feel rightly threatened.
Denying their way-of-life is worse than death, so if their way-of-life is to be outlawed they are likely to die.

<<Nonetheless, Christianity is indeed a religion.>>

Following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ is a religion.
Christianity is only a religion to the extent it follows the footsteps of Jesus Christ.

<<And the Catholic church - a Christian religion - has harboured and defended individual paedophiles within its hierarchy>>

Would Jesus approve that??

<<an act that is aided and abetted by the requirements and rituals of that religion.>>

An act that is aided and abetted by degenerated requirements and rituals of that church.

Conclusion:

As there is no way for the religious way-of-life to be verified by secular authorities and differentiated from other ways-of-life, religious people must strive for maximum pluralism, where the state does not interfere in people's lives and ANY way-of-life is legal, even (sadly) if it's not a good one.

In that light, the Catholic Church is therefore one of the worst examples of serving religion.

Y I think you are trying to impress me at least, and your self too, that you are extremely intelligent and that your words have a mystical meaning.
I too think you think, you can convince me and your self, others too, man is his own God.
Let me call a spade a B shovel for you.
The thought I had on starting the thread was that every God ever worshiped was part of a religion.
His/Her followers part of religion.
I hoped for true debate.
True open reasoning talk, do we need religions.
Do they benefit or stall humanity.
Some folk know far more than I ever will, maybe you do, but how can you justifie saying Catholics are not a religion.
Some, far too many, from within the Church are not, not in the true sense.
But little Children sent to learn about the God and Church do not know that.
I see each of these religions Y but not yours.
I feel the very painful acts against kids demands much more than verbal tennis with a triple somersault.

Dear Belly,

I talk with Pericles on a sophisticated intellectual and theological level, but you are looking at the practical side, so I should not bother you with theological answers, only concentrate on the practical aspects.

<<but how can you justifie saying Catholics are not a religion.>>

What I said is that Catholicism is a mixed bag.
Some members are religious, others aren't.
I can tell from personal knowledge that there is life in the lay level.
The priesthood I don't know personally, but I'm told it smells rotten.

A body may have had a life,
but there comes a time when a doctor needs to look at it and say "Nay, now it's only a corpse".

<<But little Children sent to learn about the God and Church do not know that.>>

So you need to tell them.

Instead of blindly believing that since the Church was once religious it must remain so forever, you must take a good sniff and tell them:
"Sorry children, but this church is dead, we shouldn't go near, let's find another".

>>What I said is that Catholicism is a mixed bag.
Some members are religious, others aren't.<<

All Catholics - according to Catholic doctrine - are religious. What is a fella to believe? On the one hand we have this:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Which I have long considered nonsense. On the other hand we have Yuyutsu's kooky beliefs which say that some religious people aren't religious at all. I think this is nonsense. Of course Yuyutsu thinks he is god and probably considers everything he says to be the inerrant word of god. I think this is also nonsense.

But seeing as the choice is between the teachings of a man a lot of people consider infallible on matters of faith and teachings of a self-proclaimed God I'm going to have to go with the bloke who's got the numbers and say that all Catholics are religious. And that if you're not religious you can't qualify as Catholic.

>>"Sorry children, but this church is dead, we shouldn't go near, let's find another".<<

Or just make one up as you go along. Either is good. Hey, it worked Lafayette Ron Hubbard. And Jim Jones.

Cheers,

Tony