|
Alright, enough religious debate. If you want to talk about Pope Benedict and what he specifically did or didn't do, go ahead. But no more general discussion on the merits or ills of the Catholic church or their history.
-page 12 |
Thread got closed, so will post this here.
On February 11 2013 23:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I think it's in the best interest for all of us to organize resumes and put together cover letters, and have a healthy TL competition to see if one of us can become the new pope.
Let us find out who among the humble and faithful in TL has the best chance of being a pope. Here are the requirements by the way.
There are no formal requirements other than the candidate be a Catholic male. In theory, one doesn't even have to be a Cardinal (Or a priest!) to be elected Pope. In practice however, this has not occurred since 1379. There are INFORMAL requirements...unwritten rules if you will, for being elected Pope. 1. RANK: One must be a Cardinal to be elected Pope. If one is not a Cardinal and was elected as Pope, he is first Ordained as a Cardinal then he becomes Pope. 2. AGE: There are no formal age requirements for being elected Pope, but keep in mind that Cardinals are RARELY appointed before age 50. The youngest Cardinal presently serving is 57. Cardinals 80 and over cannot vote for Pope, and no one over 79 has EVER been elected Pope. The window of opportunity, therefore, is from one's late 50's to one's late 70's. Cardinals in their 60's are considered to be the ideal age for election. 3. LANGUAGES: The person who would be Pope must speak at least 3 languages: Latin, Italian, English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, and German are especially good for a potential Pope to know. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_requirements_for_being_pope
Ok TLers. Post your qualifications:
1. Your religion
2. Your ideas about catholicism and religion to see your knowledge about the topic
3. Your key policies or programs once you get elected
4. A short message from you
Once we have enough applications, we will list down the applicants and subject them to voting to see who in TL can be the next Pope!
GO GO GO!
|
Austria24417 Posts
On February 12 2013 00:11 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:54 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:41 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:27 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:20 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:11 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:09 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:03 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
This is not practical advice for a modern family who can't afford ten kids, let alone for war torn, misogynistic rape cultures. It's not quite as bad as saying "the only way to cure HIV is to pass it on to someone else, if you still have it then they probably didn't catch it or already had it so try often with multiple partners" but discouraging condom use isn't far off that. Abstinence only is a symptom of institutional denial of realities in the Vatican, no atheist pun intended, it's not preventing the spread of HIV while condoms work. Wait what? "If you don't want kids, don't have sex" is not practical advice to a modern family who can't afford ten kids? So it's the fault of an old man in Italy giving advice that will solve the problem if followed, but not the fault of rapists in a rape culture? Seems like the hatred is a bit misplaced here... Bottom line is, it's impossible to spread AIDS sexually without having sex. It is still possible to do so when having sex with condoms. This is not debatable. It's also possible for the human race to die without having sex ffs. Not having sex is against nature. Everybody who advises abstinence is an idiot. lol, please try to use your brain. No one is promoting that NO ONE have sex. But if you cannot be responsible for the potential consequences of sexual intercourse, then you should not engage in sexual intercourse. But that's the thing, you can. He just doesn't want to accept it because it's against completely outdated rules written in a book that was altered to supress people. Condoms tearing is not what's causing the problems african peoples have with AIDS. Neither is anal sex. It's the fact that they don't have condoms. That's the real problem. And by saying that "it might be ok to use condoms in some cases if you're a male prostitute, ...", he's certainly not gonna help that problem. More like it's the fact that people who have AIDS have sex anyway and spread AIDS even when advised not to is the real problem. And the "quote" you provided is not true. I quoted that from the fucking article he posted, WTF. Those are his exact words. Stop replying if you're not gonna bother checking first. But they're humans. Sex is a natural instinct they have. Most of them lack the education to fully understand what AIDS is. Just telling them "well, don't have sex then" isn't gonna solve the fucking problem. Yes it's theoretically correct but it ignores the fucking problem. It's easy to talk from that golden chair of his but he's completely fucking delusional if he thinks that advising abstinence is gonna solve anything. How about you do something practical first that actually helps (like, I dunno... giving them condoms?) and actually teachign them wtf AIDS is so they'll understand why it might not be a good idea for them to have sex. Those are not his exact words. We can't have a productive discussion if you are going to blatantly lie like that. Human beings also have a natural instinct to eat. Do you believe that people should eat until they weigh 600 lbs? And why do you believe they are incapable of practicing self control? Because they're Africans?Practicing abstinence doesn't ignore the problem, it addresses it directly and provides a solution. Using condoms allows the problem to continue. WTF It's because the population in which AIDS is most problematic doesn't have proper education to understand what AIDS is. They won't understand why they shouldn't be having sex. It's fucking natural to have sex. It's like telling people who are standing in the rain without an umbrella to not leave the house when it's raining, meanwhile holding 5 umbrellas in your hands. Are you correct? Yes, you're correct. But you could also fucking give them an umbrella to solve the problem at hand first, which is that they're getting soaked by the rain. You did not answer my question. It's also natural to eat. But does that mean there is no situation where you should probably exercise self control when eating? Actually, it's more like a doctor telling someone to stay inside their house if they have a contagious, life threatening manbearpig flu. And then the person wants to go outside anyway because they think that if they wear a face mask, they can lower the chance of exposure to other people. But the doctor tells them that even with the mask, they risk exposing people anyway, so they should probably just stay inside. And then the person goes outside without a mask, infects everyone. And then, he goes and blames the doctor. Yes, it's human nature to want to have sex. But it's not human nature to be infected with HIV. So if you have HIV, you need to be conscious of that and not engage in activities that might harm other people.
That's a completely different thing, that's why I didn't answer. You will stop eating at some point because your body will naturally tell you so. Will your body stop you from having sex when you're in love with someone and it's getting to that point in your relationship?
Your example is completely different from what I'm saying though. Your example includes the person already knowing the consequences of what could happen and ignoring them. READ MY POST. I bolded it for you.
That's the problem I have with what he said. Yes he's correct that you shouldn't have sex if you have AIDS. But it's completely fucking ignorant to tell that to people who have no fucking idea what AIDS is, how it can be averted and what it can do to you.
|
On February 12 2013 00:08 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:00 Zandar wrote:On February 11 2013 23:53 McBengt wrote:On February 11 2013 23:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On February 11 2013 23:45 Zandar wrote:On February 11 2013 23:41 ZeromuS wrote:
I just want to add to everyone reading my post.
We should try to remember that a certain amount of respect should be given to those who believe in the catholic church and god and religion etc etc. That goes both ways. Have the same respect for atheists, other religions, gays, women and you get my respect too. Do we have to have respect for Scientologists, 9/11 conspirators, pastafarians, and flat-earth creationists too? This is probably what vexes me the most. This arrogant assumption that we should always give respect to unsubstantiated beliefs because...well just because! No, I judge all claims and all people by the same standard, I don't care who or what they are, if a person is a good person I will respect him/her, if a claim can be supported by scientific evidence, I will believe it. That's it, those are the rules, and you don't get special exemptions because Jesus/Mohammad/Spaghetti Monster. The thing is, you are not going to change people's believes. So you can be like "us" and "them" or you can learn to have mutually respect while not agreeing with eachother. Do you really have mutual respect for people that believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster while not agreeing with their beliefs, or do you secretly think they are a little bit silly but in the interests of diplomacy claim to respect them? Some people prefer honesty.
But there is a difference between respecting what they believe and respecting them as a person. No matter how much you disagree with somebody based on his/her beliefs you can always stay polite and respect them as a human being imo. A person is not solely made up of the belief in a religion no matter how absurd (you think) the religion may be.
You can disrespect a persons belief as much as you want and that´s a good thing, but I also think there is no reason why you can´t be civil about it.
|
On February 12 2013 00:06 Golden Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:56 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:51 Wrath 2.1 wrote:On February 11 2013 23:37 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:30 Wrath 2.1 wrote:On February 11 2013 23:27 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:23 Wrath 2.1 wrote:On February 11 2013 23:20 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:11 DarkLordOlli wrote:
[quote]
It's also possible for the human race to die without having sex ffs. Not having sex is against nature. Everybody who advises abstinence is an idiot. lol, please try to use your brain. No one is promoting that NO ONE have sex. But if you cannot be responsible for the potential consequences of sexual intercourse, then you should not engage in sexual intercourse. But that's the thing, you can. He just doesn't want to accept it because it's against completely outdated rules written in a book that was altered to supress people. you're rude and offensive beyond words He was as well. I don't see a reason to hold back. what you are saying is blasphemic, you are insulting a over 2000 year old tradition that billions of people follow with their heart and soul, because someone asked you to use your brain. LOL, I don't give a fuck about blasphemic. I don't believe in god. I don't feel obligated to respect people who would defend an organisation that has opressed and exploited people for centuries. I'm not insulting the christian belief itself, I'm rightfully calling out the organisation representing it. And if you're actually feeling insulted by that then whatever. Tell me how what I said is wrong and why exactly I should feel bad for it. You are wrong because you are indeed insulting the christian belief in intself. The holy bible, god's word is the christian belief, so either you decide to insult it or you don't, I am not sure what you are trying right now. No actually it's not. The christian belief is not the version of the bible you're reading today. This. From wikipedia: In the 4th century a series of synods produced a list of texts equal to the 39, 46(51),54, or 57 book canon of the Old Testament and to the 27-book canon of the New Testament that would be subsequently used to today, most notably the Synod of Hippo in AD 393. Also c. 400, Jerome produced a definitive Latin edition of the Bible (see Vulgate), the canon of which, at the insistence of the Pope, was in accord with the earlier Synods. With the benefit of hindsight it can be said that this process effectively set the New Testament canon, although there are examples of other canonical lists in use after this time. A definitive list did not come from an Ecumenical Council until the Council of Trent (1545–63)And at several of these synods influential groups of Christians could not be represented and thus the scriptures they believed to be true were omitted from what we now call the New Testament. If you are interested in some of the things the early Christians believed in that are removed from Christianity on account of not being included in the New Testament look up some of the books written by Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman. Interesting reads imo no matter what your stand on Christianity is.
I am aware of that. It changes nothing. The bible is gods word.
|
He's 85 years old and no longer feels that he is of sound body and mind to lead an entire ministry. More power to him to come to this conclusion without being forced into it - this seems entirely voluntary from this perspective. I'm not religious at all nor do I really care at all. He would be dead soon anyways, best he enjoy the remainder of his life.
|
On February 12 2013 00:13 MVega wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:08 Reason wrote:On February 12 2013 00:00 Zandar wrote:On February 11 2013 23:53 McBengt wrote:On February 11 2013 23:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On February 11 2013 23:45 Zandar wrote:On February 11 2013 23:41 ZeromuS wrote:
I just want to add to everyone reading my post.
We should try to remember that a certain amount of respect should be given to those who believe in the catholic church and god and religion etc etc. That goes both ways. Have the same respect for atheists, other religions, gays, women and you get my respect too. Do we have to have respect for Scientologists, 9/11 conspirators, pastafarians, and flat-earth creationists too? This is probably what vexes me the most. This arrogant assumption that we should always give respect to unsubstantiated beliefs because...well just because! No, I judge all claims and all people by the same standard, I don't care who or what they are, if a person is a good person I will respect him/her, if a claim can be supported by scientific evidence, I will believe it. That's it, those are the rules, and you don't get special exemptions because Jesus/Mohammad/Spaghetti Monster. The thing is, you are not going to change people's believes. So you can be like "us" and "them" or you can learn to have mutually respect while not agreeing with eachother. Do you really have mutual respect for people that believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster while not agreeing with their beliefs, or do you secretly think they are a little bit silly but in the interests of diplomacy claim to respect them? Some people prefer honesty. ... if they truly believe in such a thing then yes I will respect their belief and not be an asshole by belittling them or being disrespectful about their beliefs... ...we all get along quite well by respecting each other's beliefs or lack thereof. As adults we can actually discuss the topic without anyone being insulting towards anyone else, and without anyone getting offended. It's called being an adult and realizing that there really isn't any reason to be disrespectful towards someone else just because what they believe is different.
So yeah, it's diplomacy...
I'm an adult too by the way, and your assumption that the way you decide to conduct yourself is the right way and to behave otherwise makes you an asshole is the same disrespect for the beliefs of others you claim to be innocent of.
|
On February 12 2013 00:12 Myles wrote:
See the mod note. Heed the note.
Thank you sir.
Looks like there are several decent cardinals that people are predicting to be elected but the reality is that it's guesswork until the actual announcement.
I got to see Pope Benedict about ten times over the past six years, and I wish I could be in Rome for the upcoming Conclave.
|
On February 11 2013 23:53 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On February 11 2013 23:45 Zandar wrote:On February 11 2013 23:41 ZeromuS wrote:
I just want to add to everyone reading my post.
We should try to remember that a certain amount of respect should be given to those who believe in the catholic church and god and religion etc etc. That goes both ways. Have the same respect for atheists, other religions, gays, women and you get my respect too. Do we have to have respect for Scientologists, 9/11 conspirators, pastafarians, and flat-earth creationists too? This is probably what vexes me the most. This arrogant assumption that we should always give respect to unsubstantiated beliefs because...well just because! No, I judge all claims and all people by the same standard, I don't care who or what they are, if a person is a good person I will respect him/her, if a claim can be supported by scientific evidence, I will believe it. That's it, those are the rules, and you don't get special exemptions because Jesus/Mohammad/Spaghetti Monster.
They get exemptions sometimes time and other times a publisher's offices might be firebombed.
only saw it after click
|
United States5162 Posts
|
On February 12 2013 00:08 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:00 Zandar wrote:On February 11 2013 23:53 McBengt wrote:On February 11 2013 23:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On February 11 2013 23:45 Zandar wrote:On February 11 2013 23:41 ZeromuS wrote:
I just want to add to everyone reading my post.
We should try to remember that a certain amount of respect should be given to those who believe in the catholic church and god and religion etc etc. That goes both ways. Have the same respect for atheists, other religions, gays, women and you get my respect too. Do we have to have respect for Scientologists, 9/11 conspirators, pastafarians, and flat-earth creationists too? This is probably what vexes me the most. This arrogant assumption that we should always give respect to unsubstantiated beliefs because...well just because! No, I judge all claims and all people by the same standard, I don't care who or what they are, if a person is a good person I will respect him/her, if a claim can be supported by scientific evidence, I will believe it. That's it, those are the rules, and you don't get special exemptions because Jesus/Mohammad/Spaghetti Monster. The thing is, you are not going to change people's believes. So you can be like "us" and "them" or you can learn to have mutually respect while not agreeing with eachother. Do you really have mutual respect for people that believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster while not agreeing with their beliefs, or do you secretly think they are a little bit silly but in the interests of diplomacy claim to respect them? Some people prefer honesty.
Doesn't really matter, they probably think I'm equally silly for not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If you want religious people to have respect for your point of view, having no respect for their views won't help. I say it too when I don't agree, quite often actually, but disrespect immediately stops any debate.
edit:Sorry mod post was not there when I hit enter, will stay on subject now.
|
On February 12 2013 00:15 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:11 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:54 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:41 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:27 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:20 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:11 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:09 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
[quote]
Wait what? "If you don't want kids, don't have sex" is not practical advice to a modern family who can't afford ten kids?
So it's the fault of an old man in Italy giving advice that will solve the problem if followed, but not the fault of rapists in a rape culture? Seems like the hatred is a bit misplaced here...
Bottom line is, it's impossible to spread AIDS sexually without having sex. It is still possible to do so when having sex with condoms. This is not debatable. It's also possible for the human race to die without having sex ffs. Not having sex is against nature. Everybody who advises abstinence is an idiot. lol, please try to use your brain. No one is promoting that NO ONE have sex. But if you cannot be responsible for the potential consequences of sexual intercourse, then you should not engage in sexual intercourse. But that's the thing, you can. He just doesn't want to accept it because it's against completely outdated rules written in a book that was altered to supress people. Condoms tearing is not what's causing the problems african peoples have with AIDS. Neither is anal sex. It's the fact that they don't have condoms. That's the real problem. And by saying that "it might be ok to use condoms in some cases if you're a male prostitute, ...", he's certainly not gonna help that problem. More like it's the fact that people who have AIDS have sex anyway and spread AIDS even when advised not to is the real problem. And the "quote" you provided is not true. I quoted that from the fucking article he posted, WTF. Those are his exact words. Stop replying if you're not gonna bother checking first. But they're humans. Sex is a natural instinct they have. Most of them lack the education to fully understand what AIDS is. Just telling them "well, don't have sex then" isn't gonna solve the fucking problem. Yes it's theoretically correct but it ignores the fucking problem. It's easy to talk from that golden chair of his but he's completely fucking delusional if he thinks that advising abstinence is gonna solve anything. How about you do something practical first that actually helps (like, I dunno... giving them condoms?) and actually teachign them wtf AIDS is so they'll understand why it might not be a good idea for them to have sex. Those are not his exact words. We can't have a productive discussion if you are going to blatantly lie like that. Human beings also have a natural instinct to eat. Do you believe that people should eat until they weigh 600 lbs? And why do you believe they are incapable of practicing self control? Because they're Africans?Practicing abstinence doesn't ignore the problem, it addresses it directly and provides a solution. Using condoms allows the problem to continue. WTF It's because the population in which AIDS is most problematic doesn't have proper education to understand what AIDS is. They won't understand why they shouldn't be having sex. It's fucking natural to have sex. It's like telling people who are standing in the rain without an umbrella to not leave the house when it's raining, meanwhile holding 5 umbrellas in your hands. Are you correct? Yes, you're correct. But you could also fucking give them an umbrella to solve the problem at hand first, which is that they're getting soaked by the rain. You did not answer my question. It's also natural to eat. But does that mean there is no situation where you should probably exercise self control when eating? Actually, it's more like a doctor telling someone to stay inside their house if they have a contagious, life threatening manbearpig flu. And then the person wants to go outside anyway because they think that if they wear a face mask, they can lower the chance of exposure to other people. But the doctor tells them that even with the mask, they risk exposing people anyway, so they should probably just stay inside. And then the person goes outside without a mask, infects everyone. And then, he goes and blames the doctor. Yes, it's human nature to want to have sex. But it's not human nature to be infected with HIV. So if you have HIV, you need to be conscious of that and not engage in activities that might harm other people. That's a completely different thing, that's why I didn't answer. You will stop eating at some point because your body will naturally tell you so. Will your body stop you from having sex when you're in love with someone and it's getting to that point in your relationship? Your example is completely different from what I'm saying though. Your example includes the person already knowing the consequences of what could happen and ignoring them. READ MY POST. I bolded it for you.
If you love someone, would you risk infecting them with a terrible disease?
LOL my example is almost identical to the situation except instead of abstinence from intercourse, it's abstinence from leaving the house. Sounds like you're in a corner.
So why not educate them on the consequence of what could happen so that they can make an educated decision not to
expose their loved ones to AIDS, instead of encouraging them to do something that doesn't solve the problem? I don't think the church is hiding from people the consequences of having intercourse while infected with AIDS. Do you have a source on this?
|
How much is known about the election process for the next pope? I know the cardinals will elevt, but how does a cardinal "race for the pope position"?
|
Not really surprising, to be honest. When Ratzinger was elected everyone knew that he wouldn't sit on the Papal seat for too long as he was already quite old at the time. The impression I got was that it was a rather purposeful selection by the conclave as JPII reigned for an incredibly long time.
Now, what would be interesting after Benedict XVI's resignation is that Benedict and JPII are both from the same generation of Catholics. Although their philosophical leanings were different, they both were both involved in Vatican II when they were younger and they lived alongside Karl Rahner. As they aren't going to elect someone of Benedict's generation as the new pope, we will see something different now. I really dislike the things that Benedict had done during his time as pope and I think most of his reversing of Vatican II and JPII's work was a mistake. Hopefully we won't see a continuing conservative turn with the future pope.
|
Regardless of what you think of Benedict XVI, he's setting a good example by resigning.
Why other popes think staying in the job until you die is a good idea is beyond me.
|
On February 12 2013 00:21 Sandermatt wrote:
How much is known about the election process for the next pope? I know the cardinals will elevt, but how does a cardinal "race for the pope position"?
Was wondering about that too.
How long could the maximum time without a pope in theory be?
|
Does anyone know whether the Pope will keep his papal name or go back to his birth name afterwards? Sorry, it's it's already been answered.
|
On February 12 2013 00:17 Butterednuts wrote:
He's 85 years old and no longer feels that he is of sound body and mind to lead an entire ministry. More power to him to come to this conclusion without being forced into it - this seems entirely voluntary from this perspective. I'm not religious at all nor do I really care at all. He would be dead soon anyways, best he enjoy the remainder of his life.
What happens to popes when they resign? Do they get any special church honors? benefits? or do they leave the priesthood entirely?
|
What does a retired pope do? Does he go back to shifting and hiding child raping priests from parish to parish?
User was warned for this post
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On February 12 2013 00:16 Wrath 2.1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:06 Golden Ghost wrote:On February 11 2013 23:56 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:51 Wrath 2.1 wrote:On February 11 2013 23:37 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:30 Wrath 2.1 wrote:On February 11 2013 23:27 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:23 Wrath 2.1 wrote:On February 11 2013 23:20 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
[quote]
lol, please try to use your brain. No one is promoting that NO ONE have sex. But if you cannot be responsible for the potential consequences of sexual intercourse, then you should not engage in sexual intercourse.
But that's the thing, you can. He just doesn't want to accept it because it's against completely outdated rules written in a book that was altered to supress people. you're rude and offensive beyond words He was as well. I don't see a reason to hold back. what you are saying is blasphemic, you are insulting a over 2000 year old tradition that billions of people follow with their heart and soul, because someone asked you to use your brain. LOL, I don't give a fuck about blasphemic. I don't believe in god. I don't feel obligated to respect people who would defend an organisation that has opressed and exploited people for centuries. I'm not insulting the christian belief itself, I'm rightfully calling out the organisation representing it. And if you're actually feeling insulted by that then whatever. Tell me how what I said is wrong and why exactly I should feel bad for it. You are wrong because you are indeed insulting the christian belief in intself. The holy bible, god's word is the christian belief, so either you decide to insult it or you don't, I am not sure what you are trying right now. No actually it's not. The christian belief is not the version of the bible you're reading today. This. From wikipedia: In the 4th century a series of synods produced a list of texts equal to the 39, 46(51),54, or 57 book canon of the Old Testament and to the 27-book canon of the New Testament that would be subsequently used to today, most notably the Synod of Hippo in AD 393. Also c. 400, Jerome produced a definitive Latin edition of the Bible (see Vulgate), the canon of which, at the insistence of the Pope, was in accord with the earlier Synods. With the benefit of hindsight it can be said that this process effectively set the New Testament canon, although there are examples of other canonical lists in use after this time. A definitive list did not come from an Ecumenical Council until the Council of Trent (1545–63)And at several of these synods influential groups of Christians could not be represented and thus the scriptures they believed to be true were omitted from what we now call the New Testament. If you are interested in some of the things the early Christians believed in that are removed from Christianity on account of not being included in the New Testament look up some of the books written by Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman. Interesting reads imo no matter what your stand on Christianity is. I am aware of that. It changes nothing. The bible is gods word.
Not really, there is a big difference. For example: In Islam the Qur'an is considered God in first person. Mohammad hearing God's word (from an angel i believe) and it's written word for word in the Qur'an. While in Christianity the messages in the bible are stories, history and interpretations of God's Word. It's never stated in the bible that God came down and spoke do this dude who wrote down exactly what God said word for word. I find there to be a big difference (thank you Religion class <3).
User was warned for this post
|
On February 12 2013 00:23 Zandar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:21 Sandermatt wrote:
How much is known about the election process for the next pope? I know the cardinals will elevt, but how does a cardinal "race for the pope position"? Was wondering about that too. How long could the maximum time without a pope in theory be?
Last time a pope resigned they couldn't agree for two years. They elected than one pope that barely spoke latin and five month later he resigned.
So theoretically it could take long, but they want to find a new one unti easter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
