|
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 |
On February 12 2013 07:04 Chylo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 06:58 Cloud9157 wrote:
Benedict can hide behind the fact that it was his mental+physical health that caused him to resign, but there is no way all of these scandals didn't affect his decision in the end.
With that said, I hope that the next pope will be someone more progressive, though I doubt that will happen. The Catholic Church is comprised of old, white men that resist change in every way shape and form. They will elect another old white man and he will be the same as the hundred odd that were before him. The failure of the Catholic Church to adapt will ultimately be its undoing. Lol. 2000 years later it's still here, with nearly 1 billion members. The modern world is obsessed with adapting and change. The fundamental reason for the Church's success is its ability to be unchanging and not bow to every novelty of the day.
But a shell of what power it used to wield. The talk about Latin America is due in part that the largest most concentrated Catholics are in Mexico, Brazil and in the Pacific the Philippines. All this talk about an American Pope are far sighted IMO due to the rising numbers of Atheists and other religion(s) i.e. Buddhism, Europe the same.
|
On February 12 2013 08:16 Jisall wrote:Looking forward to see the new pope. If he names himself Peter I will shat myself. The endgames would definitely be coming then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_PopesLol about the liberal pope talk. If you looking to change a religion, just leave that religion. They do the things they do because it is in their scripture, not because it is what the some people deem they should do. Accept a religion for what it is and stands for, or pick a different religion.
this display of ignorance while there is an ongoing discussion in the thread about Vatican II is amazing.
Dogma changes in every religion, and for the Catholics they can have conclave like they did with Vatican II which implied a lot of change both in the dogma and in the philosophy supporting it.
If you take Scriptures literally you just act as a retard, so it's up to the interpretation, add the fact that you've a gazillion traduction of the Bible...
|
Nothing makes a more hostile environment than a good ole religion discussion :0
|
On February 12 2013 07:04 Chylo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 06:58 Cloud9157 wrote:
Benedict can hide behind the fact that it was his mental+physical health that caused him to resign, but there is no way all of these scandals didn't affect his decision in the end.
With that said, I hope that the next pope will be someone more progressive, though I doubt that will happen. The Catholic Church is comprised of old, white men that resist change in every way shape and form. They will elect another old white man and he will be the same as the hundred odd that were before him. The failure of the Catholic Church to adapt will ultimately be its undoing. Lol. 2000 years later it's still here, with nearly 1 billion members. The modern world is obsessed with adapting and change. The fundamental reason for the Church's success is its ability to be unchanging and not bow to every novelty of the day.
It's still here, but it has gone through several major periods of change. Vatican II has been referenced numerous times in this discussion already.
The Catholic church now is a shell of what it used to be, in terms of influence and power. It can either adapt to stay relevant and influential in the world, or stick to it's roots and continue to be marginalized in the modern world.
|
An african pope (see bookmakers predictions)? Could this lead to allowing christians to use condoms?
I'd like to see a black pope anyway (i'm atheist).
|
Interesting that he would resign. The Cardinals are notorious for plotting against popes that they don't like, so maybe they pressured him to step down.
|
I agree with something like Alzeheimer's disease, but who knows, maybe he's going to try out for Star Wars or something.
|
On February 12 2013 08:55 Nyarly wrote:
An african pope (see bookmakers predictions)? Could this lead to allowing christians to use condoms?
I'd like to see a black pope anyway (i'm atheist).
Probably not, cause from what I read/heard African christians are more conservative compared to European ones. So they will probably ban condoms (even for use in Africa, which Benedict allowed).
|
On February 12 2013 08:34 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 08:16 Jisall wrote:Looking forward to see the new pope. If he names himself Peter I will shat myself. The endgames would definitely be coming then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_PopesLol about the liberal pope talk. If you looking to change a religion, just leave that religion. They do the things they do because it is in their scripture, not because it is what the some people deem they should do. Accept a religion for what it is and stands for, or pick a different religion. this display of ignorance while there is an ongoing discussion in the thread about Vatican II is amazing. Dogma changes in every religion, and for the Catholics they can have conclave like they did with Vatican II which implied a lot of change both in the dogma and in the philosophy supporting it. If you take Scriptures literally you just act as a retard, so it's up to the interpretation, add the fact that you've a gazillion traduction of the Bible...
 . It looks like our views differ. I can respect that and still stand by my view that if you wish to change a religion, your in it for the wrong reason.
On February 12 2013 08:48 GGY0UMAKE wrote:
Nothing makes a more hostile environment than a good ole religion discussion :0
Lol welcome to the internet sir. Imagine all the won internet arguments in this thread.
|
United States43646 Posts
On February 12 2013 08:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 07:04 Chylo wrote:On February 12 2013 06:58 Cloud9157 wrote:
Benedict can hide behind the fact that it was his mental+physical health that caused him to resign, but there is no way all of these scandals didn't affect his decision in the end.
With that said, I hope that the next pope will be someone more progressive, though I doubt that will happen. The Catholic Church is comprised of old, white men that resist change in every way shape and form. They will elect another old white man and he will be the same as the hundred odd that were before him. The failure of the Catholic Church to adapt will ultimately be its undoing. Lol. 2000 years later it's still here, with nearly 1 billion members. The modern world is obsessed with adapting and change. The fundamental reason for the Church's success is its ability to be unchanging and not bow to every novelty of the day. But a shell of what power it used to wield. The talk about Latin America is due in part that the largest most concentrated Catholics are in Mexico, Brazil and in the Pacific the Philippines. All this talk about an American Pope are far sighted IMO due to the rising numbers of Atheists and other religion( s) i.e. Buddhism, Europe the same.
Also the suggestion that the people of Africa and Latin America centuries ago were overwhelmed by how incredibly consistent the dogma had been and felt compelled to sign up to the religion a somewhat rose tinted view on how it went down.
|
On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote:
L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL
He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize. 
He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth.
He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war.
And they called him a conservative pope...
|
On February 12 2013 09:03 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 08:34 sAsImre wrote:On February 12 2013 08:16 Jisall wrote:Looking forward to see the new pope. If he names himself Peter I will shat myself. The endgames would definitely be coming then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_PopesLol about the liberal pope talk. If you looking to change a religion, just leave that religion. They do the things they do because it is in their scripture, not because it is what the some people deem they should do. Accept a religion for what it is and stands for, or pick a different religion. this display of ignorance while there is an ongoing discussion in the thread about Vatican II is amazing. Dogma changes in every religion, and for the Catholics they can have conclave like they did with Vatican II which implied a lot of change both in the dogma and in the philosophy supporting it. If you take Scriptures literally you just act as a retard, so it's up to the interpretation, add the fact that you've a gazillion traduction of the Bible... . It looks like our views differ. I can respect that and still stand by my view that if you wish to change a religion, your in it for the wrong reason. Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 08:48 GGY0UMAKE wrote:
Nothing makes a more hostile environment than a good ole religion discussion :0 Lol welcome to the internet sir. Imagine all the won internet arguments in this thread.
So Vatican II never happened, 4th century council either, Imam don't interpret the Quoran in your world ? The only difference on this point is the presence of an institution that decide unilaterally how you should interpret the texts (Catholicism ie) or not (Islam ie). It's not something that you debate about lol.
On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote:
L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize. He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war. And they called him a conservative pope...
Pope stance is related to morale, a system which put the economy before the human will never satisfy the church but it doesn't qualify the pope.
|
On February 12 2013 08:55 Nyarly wrote:
An african pope (see bookmakers predictions)? Could this lead to allowing christians to use condoms?
I'd like to see a black pope anyway (i'm atheist).
I'm just curious, what does you being an atheist have to do with you wanting to see a black pope?
|
On February 12 2013 09:23 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 08:55 Nyarly wrote:
An african pope (see bookmakers predictions)? Could this lead to allowing christians to use condoms?
I'd like to see a black pope anyway (i'm atheist). I'm just curious, what does you being an atheist have to do with you wanting to see a black pope?
I can't tell but his post looks like it has subtle racism in it. Why would this lead to allowing Christians to use condoms?
|
On February 12 2013 09:03 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 08:34 sAsImre wrote:On February 12 2013 08:16 Jisall wrote:Looking forward to see the new pope. If he names himself Peter I will shat myself. The endgames would definitely be coming then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_PopesLol about the liberal pope talk. If you looking to change a religion, just leave that religion. They do the things they do because it is in their scripture, not because it is what the some people deem they should do. Accept a religion for what it is and stands for, or pick a different religion. this display of ignorance while there is an ongoing discussion in the thread about Vatican II is amazing. Dogma changes in every religion, and for the Catholics they can have conclave like they did with Vatican II which implied a lot of change both in the dogma and in the philosophy supporting it. If you take Scriptures literally you just act as a retard, so it's up to the interpretation, add the fact that you've a gazillion traduction of the Bible... . It looks like our views differ. I can respect that and still stand by my view that if you wish to change a religion, your in it for the wrong reason. Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 08:48 GGY0UMAKE wrote:
Nothing makes a more hostile environment than a good ole religion discussion :0 Lol welcome to the internet sir. Imagine all the won internet arguments in this thread.
You realize every single religion has changed. Every. Single. One. Even the ultra orthodox aren't practicing the religion from the Bible. I'm really sorry but I don't think this is a matter of opinion.
|
United States43646 Posts
On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote:
L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize. He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth.
You realise that he is sitting upon a massive amount of money taken from the poorest people from around the world when he says that, right? And that the money flows in only one direction.
Yes, at a time at which the poorest people in the world, a lot of whom were Catholic, were suffering leaped on the "greed is evil" bandwagon but he did it while being more morally bankrupt than the bankers were and without even paying taxes on the Vatican's vast investments.
Presenting anyone at the Vatican as socialist is a joke, they accumulate colossal amounts of wealth.
|
On February 12 2013 09:25 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 09:23 Kimaker wrote:On February 12 2013 08:55 Nyarly wrote:
An african pope (see bookmakers predictions)? Could this lead to allowing christians to use condoms?
I'd like to see a black pope anyway (i'm atheist). I'm just curious, what does you being an atheist have to do with you wanting to see a black pope? I can't tell but his post looks like it has subtle racism in it. Why would this lead to allowing Christians to use condoms?
I dont remember (and I suck at searching) what African cardinal it was but one of them said that condoms actually spread HIV so any change in regards of condoms is extremely unlikely. Actually I guess it will be unlikely regardless of the continent the new pope comes from.
|
On February 12 2013 09:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 08:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On February 12 2013 07:04 Chylo wrote:On February 12 2013 06:58 Cloud9157 wrote:
Benedict can hide behind the fact that it was his mental+physical health that caused him to resign, but there is no way all of these scandals didn't affect his decision in the end.
With that said, I hope that the next pope will be someone more progressive, though I doubt that will happen. The Catholic Church is comprised of old, white men that resist change in every way shape and form. They will elect another old white man and he will be the same as the hundred odd that were before him. The failure of the Catholic Church to adapt will ultimately be its undoing. Lol. 2000 years later it's still here, with nearly 1 billion members. The modern world is obsessed with adapting and change. The fundamental reason for the Church's success is its ability to be unchanging and not bow to every novelty of the day. But a shell of what power it used to wield. The talk about Latin America is due in part that the largest most concentrated Catholics are in Mexico, Brazil and in the Pacific the Philippines. All this talk about an American Pope are far sighted IMO due to the rising numbers of Atheists and other religion( s) i.e. Buddhism, Europe the same. Also the suggestion that the people of Africa and Latin America centuries ago were overwhelmed by how incredibly consistent the dogma had been and felt compelled to sign up to the religion a somewhat rose tinted view on how it went down.
Rose-tinted is a rather mild way of saying "completely nonsensical".
And this is only an anecdote, but I've heard more than once from both Catholic clergy and laypersons that the most corrupt dioceses these days are all located in Africa. You can note that most of the Catholic sex scandals over the past decade pertained incidents that are quite old. The theme has generally been of uncovering crimes that were buried and suppressed.
On February 12 2013 09:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote:
L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize. He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. You realise that he is sitting upon a massive amount of money taken from the poorest people from around the world when he says that, right? And that the money flows in only one direction. Yes, at a time at which the poorest people in the world, a lot of whom were Catholic, were suffering leaped on the "greed is evil" bandwagon but he did it while being more morally bankrupt than they were and without even paying taxes on its vast Italian investments. Presenting anyone at the Vatican as socialist is a joke, they accumulate colossal amounts of wealth.
The Vatican's disdain towards the Latin American liberation theologians is very telling on this point.
|
On February 12 2013 09:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote:
L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize. He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. You realise that he is sitting upon a massive amount of money taken from the poorest people from around the world when he says that, right? And that the money flows in only one direction. Yes, at a time at which the poorest people in the world, a lot of whom were Catholic, were suffering leaped on the "greed is evil" bandwagon but he did it while being more morally bankrupt than the bankers were and without even paying taxes on the Vatican's vast investments. Presenting anyone at the Vatican as socialist is a joke, they accumulate colossal amounts of wealth.
Uh..Catholic charities are utterly massive (largest in the world, taken together). If you seriously believe that the Pope is sitting there counting bills and sitting on coins, I'm not sure what to tell you. A very large amount of money flows directly back into charitable works.
(Not that I would even dream of calling the Vatican socialist)
|
United States43646 Posts
On February 12 2013 09:48 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 09:32 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote:
L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize. He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. You realise that he is sitting upon a massive amount of money taken from the poorest people from around the world when he says that, right? And that the money flows in only one direction. Yes, at a time at which the poorest people in the world, a lot of whom were Catholic, were suffering leaped on the "greed is evil" bandwagon but he did it while being more morally bankrupt than the bankers were and without even paying taxes on the Vatican's vast investments. Presenting anyone at the Vatican as socialist is a joke, they accumulate colossal amounts of wealth. Uh..Catholic charities are utterly massive (largest in the world, taken together). If you seriously believe that the Pope is sitting there counting bills and sitting on coins, I'm not sure what to tell you. A very large amount of money flows directly back into charitable works. (Not that I would even dream of calling the Vatican socialist)
Paid for predominantly by the Catholics themselves, not the Vatican. I'm not denying that Christian communities have the capability to show compassion, nor that they do charitable work. I'm pointing out that the institution of the Vatican itself has a vast investment portfolio which it fights tooth and nail to keep tax exempt and the value of which dwarfs the amount they spend on charity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
