EPTPope Benedict XVI to resign - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
scFoX
France454 Posts
| ||
|
Zandar
Netherlands1541 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:39 SpeaKEaSY wrote: There's nothing wrong with being criticizing the church, as long as your criticisms are informed and you keep your logic consistent with other religions, social groups and organizations. For example, I think if people held all governments to the same standard we hold the Vatican, there would be a lot fewer bullshit laws on the books. Unfortunately, many people hold a bias against the church because their political beliefs are different than that of the church, so they will excuse or even praise organizations that do the same or worse things than the church does. They readily make uniformed criticisms because they saw a youtube video once or something like that. I've read both the protestant, catholic bible as well as translated parts of the quran. Went to religion class as a kid. To me, everyone is allowed to have his own faith. And there are good bits and bad bits in any faith or non faith. But I will criticize popes who cause aidsbabies in africa or terrorists flying planes in buildings yes. As well as I will criticize atheists who bash people just because they are religious. | ||
|
Ohhsee
United States28 Posts
Embarrassed to count myself as one of todays youth after seeing post after post of ignorance. Maybe it's because this is a gaming website, maybe i'm just checking the wrong site every day. Whatever it is, it's pathetic. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Zandar
Netherlands1541 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:41 ZenithM wrote: Would you say you're more of a pure Neutral, Neutral good, or Loyal neutral? More like Chaotic neutral  And yes I am lazy | ||
|
Wrath 2.1
Germany880 Posts
If the church would allow homo sex much more hiv / aids was spread wich has a comulative effect. So it's natural for a religios society to ban homosexuals. (I don't hate homosexuality in itself, but as long as they pose such a risk to mankind it's for the best to have a critical stance.) So, as a catholic I support the church in it's ways, though I too would approve of a greater transparacy. | ||
Olli
Austria24417 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:45 Zandar wrote: I've read both the protestant, catholic bible as well as translated parts of the quran. Went to religion class as a kid. To me, everyone is allowed to have his own faith. And there are good bits and bad bits in any faith or non faith. But I will criticize popes who cause aidsbabies in africa or terrorists flying planes in buildings yes. As well as I will criticize atheists who bash people just because they are religious. Oh, so you're a smart person. Welcome to Agnostic Atheism, lol. JKJKJK don't ban me I personally don't believe in anything. I think we can't know anything at all. However I'm aware that that's only the conclusion I came to and that others might come to a different one, which I completely respect. What I absolutely DESPISE though is the brainwashing of children. But that discussion doesn't belong in this thread. On topic, I don't think the catholic religion is necessarily a bad thing. It could do a lot of incredibly good things for people and it does do those with charity, etc. But Benedikt was never someone who seemed like a caring person to me, at ALL. User was warned for this post | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:45 Zandar wrote: I've read both the protestant, catholic bible as well as translated parts of the quran. Went to religion class as a kid. To me, everyone is allowed to have his own faith. And there are good bits and bad bits in any faith or non faith. But I will criticize popes who cause aidsbabies in africa or terrorists flying planes in buildings yes. As well as I will criticize atheists who bash people just because they are religious. See, this is what I'm talking about when I say ignorant statements. Unless the Pope did something to infect those kids with HIV, or defraud them some way that led to them getting infected he did not cause AIDS babies. | ||
KwarK
United States42959 Posts
| ||
|
papaz
Sweden4149 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:47 Wrath 2.1 wrote: Church can't allow homosexuals until they are able to cure aids imho. If the church would allow homo sex much more hiv / aids was spread wich has a comulative effect. So it's natural for a religios society to ban homosexuals. (I don't hate homosexuality in itself, but as long as they pose such a risk to mankind it's for the best to have a critical stance.) So, as a catholic I support the church in it's ways, though I too would approve of a greater transparacy. What? Is this suppose to be funny, sarcastic or are you serious? | ||
|
McBengt
Sweden1684 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:47 Wrath 2.1 wrote: Church can't allow homosexuals until they are able to cure aids imho. If the church would allow homo sex much more hiv / aids was spread wich has a comulative effect. So it's natural for a religios society to ban homosexuals. (I don't hate homosexuality in itself, but as long as they pose such a risk to mankind it's for the best to have a critical stance.) So, as a catholic I support the church in it's ways, though I too would approve of a greater transparacy. That is a very interesting, if somewhat unlettered assertion. I assume you have solid evidence to support the claim that homosexuality exacerbates the spreading of AIDS and is a threat to mankind? | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:51 KwarK wrote: The vast, vast majority of HIV infections result from heterosexual sex in sub Saharan Africa due to shitty AIDS education there. Sorry but the facts disagree with you. Not really. From what I understand, the church teaches that if you don't have sex (abstinence), you can't transmit the virus sexually. How do the facts disagree with that? | ||
|
Olli
Austria24417 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:51 SpeaKEaSY wrote: See, this is what I'm talking about when I say ignorant statements. Unless the Pope did something to infect those kids with HIV, or defraud them some way that led to them getting infected he did not cause AIDS babies. He told people (paraphrasing) that they shouldn't use condoms. He effectively DID cause AIDS babies. if he'd said "don't have sex", that'd be a different thing (probably equally retarded) but he didn't. He said don't use condoms. | ||
|
Zandar
Netherlands1541 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:51 SpeaKEaSY wrote: See, this is what I'm talking about when I say ignorant statements. Unless the Pope did something to infect those kids with HIV, or defraud them some way that led to them getting infected he did not cause AIDS babies. To me, not doing anything about it while there is a solution, is about the same thing . But it was even worse, he forbid that solution | ||
|
Golden Ghost
Netherlands1041 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:38 furymonkey wrote: Don't have strength to continue fulfill his duty? John Pope II at his final years seems have got very old, yet he was still able to fulfill his duty, Pope Benedict XVI looks more healthy than John Pope II too. This is not true. John Paul II was in his last few years ruled by the clergy instead of ruling himself. He was only leader of the church in name, not practise. He was continually in and out of hospitals and if you saw him becoming more and more incoherent I felt so sad for him. Still trying where imo he should have done the same as Benedict now does about 5 years before his death. Before being elected as pope, Benedict was the dean of the college of cardinals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_of_the_College_of_Cardinals) and thus I believe he was in the last few years the power behind the throne so to speak. I believe that when John Paul began to deteriorate Benedict made the policy that was voiced by John Paul | ||
|
Proseat
Germany5113 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:38 furymonkey wrote: Don't have strength to continue fulfill his duty? John Pope II at his final years seems have got very old, yet he was still able to fulfill his duty, Pope Benedict XVI looks more healthy than John Pope II too. First of all, the previous pope's name was John Paul II. Yes, he died in office. But who do you think ran the Papecy in the final years of John Paul II's reign? It was Cardinal Ratzinger, these days known as Pope Benedict XVI. He is doing the smart thing now and setting an example for the future: Resign while you still can and leave the office to a rightfully elected successor. | ||
|
barth
Ireland1272 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:25 shadymmj wrote: yeah, i would love to have some of that high class crack you smoke all religions take a stand on something, and some religions take an even more extreme stance (eg. islam...) it's unrealistic to expect benedict to make a complete u-turn on church doctrines, that would be absurd personally i do not see anything wrong with advocating (read, advocating - not the position itself) a firm stance against abortion and homosexuality. i mean, if you said, i don't think he made a very good pope because of his failure to address condoms and AIDS, hopefully his successor will be better...then I think it is a perfectly valid comment. other inflammatory comments, not so much. http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/pope-seeks-immunity-over-sex-abuse-suit/2005/08/17/1123958097061.html He certainly deserves all the verbal abuse he gets here and more. There is no fucking excuse for protecting pedophiles. Hopefully he's tried again without diplomatic immunity. | ||
|
Hatsu
United Kingdom474 Posts
I personally believe religion to be a cancer for humanity. However, as I respect that fact that many people have a much different view, I pragmatically hope that the new pope will promote a modernization of the church, perhaps openly embracing contraception, divorce, women rights and so on. | ||
Ragnarork
France9034 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:47 Wrath 2.1 wrote: Church can't allow homosexuals until they are able to cure aids imho. If the church would allow homo sex much more hiv / aids was spread wich has a comulative effect. So it's natural for a religios society to ban homosexuals. (I don't hate homosexuality in itself, but as long as they pose such a risk to mankind it's for the best to have a critical stance.) So, as a catholic I support the church in it's ways, though I too would approve of a greater transparacy. You're saying church can't allow homosexuals because of AIDS spreading ? The same church that condemn the use of condoms ? I'm a christian, and ... WHAT ? Seriously, this is so incoherent... | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:53 DarkLordOlli wrote: He told people (paraphrasing) that they shouldn't use condoms. He effectively DID cause AIDS babies. if he'd said "don't have sex", that'd be a different thing (probably equally retarded) but he didn't. He said don't use condoms. But he did say don't have sex. The church forbids artificial birth control, but supports abstinence. You seem to be misinformed. | ||
|
RoberP
United Kingdom101 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:53 SpeaKEaSY wrote: Not really. From what I understand, the church teaches that if you don't have sex (abstinence), you can't transmit the virus sexually. How do the facts disagree with that? Because it's a command that goes against human nature and is almost impossible to follow. It's like telling children not to brush their teeth because they shouldn't be eating sweets. | ||
| ||
