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.
According to an Italian news agency ANSA, Pope Benedict XVI, head of the Catholic religion is stepping down from office.
(Headline google-translated)
The Pope will leave 'from February 28. The announcement in Latin during the consistory for the canonization of the martyrs of Otranto.
The site is being smashed with hits right now, so it's super unstable and I'm unable to get more of the text. (www.ANSA.it)
This is interesting news to me - Im not a catholic, or even religious in any conventional ways, but I was under the impression that a Pope of the Catholic church could only be 'relieved of duty' by God himself (As in his death)?
A Pope stepping down is very very rare - The last case AFAIK, was in 1405, over 600 years ago, and in every case of this, there were some kind of scandal involved (In this particular case, several claimants to the office)
The article link in its full form is here - The site is impossible to reach at this moment though
EDIT - Loose translation of the statement from the Pope which was made in Latin:
"The Pope leaves the papacy from February 28. The announcement was made personally, in Latin, during the consistory for the canonization of the martyrs of Otranto. "A bolt from the blue." With these words, the dean of the College of Cardinals, Cardinal Angelo Sodano said the decision to leave the pontificate of Benedict XVI
The Pope explained to feel the weight of the assignment of the pope, he had long pondered this decision and taking it for the good of the Church.
The pope has shown Feb. 28 for the term of the papacy and demanded that refers to a conclave to elect a successor."
"After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.
"I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering.
"However, in today's world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognise my incapacity to adequately fulfil the ministry entrusted to me.
"For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is."
EDIT#2
I think we should keep the past sins/drama of the catholic church out of this thread - To some people, this news is of spiritual importance and a really important event, lets show our best behaviour guys!
Confirmed by the vatican through reuters, stating he no longer has the strength to fulfill his duties. (there were already a lot of resignation rumors last year)
Hopefully they can elect someone who's actually serious about cleaning up the Vatican and moving forward instead of backward. Benedict's old fashioned rhetoric really has made the church look bad since he took office at least in my opinion.
On February 11 2013 20:19 llIH wrote: Wish for a more educated Pope next time.
Quite sure it won't be the case since if Ratzinger wasn't a PR expert his intellectual work was recognized and he's a really solid theologist. It just doesn't fit with communication, a lot of the mishaps happened because he was speaking to the public in the same way he'd speak with his peers. For someone who was supposed to be a transparant pope he had some impact, and he didn't embody the worst of the catholic church by far. Still need a bit of cleaning regarding the inner administration but I doubt his successor will be braver on this matter.
On February 11 2013 20:09 Zandar wrote: Just hope a more modern pope with less anti gay and anti condom ideas will replace him, but I don't have high hopes.
If such and individual is to be produced, it certainly wont be found within the Vatican, the most corrupt nest of hypocrites, liars, pedophiles and smirking lickspittles on the face of the planet. Personally I vote for Ted Haggard, in the name of epic lulz.
This is quite big news. Indeed it's very uncommon to see this.
My guess is the scandals around the Vatican and the pope's butler... Though there could be a lot of reasons.
I don't believe it's linked to health issues...(iirc, John Paul II died while still being the pope...).
Seeing how this person is influent, I'd hope we could see someone more like JP II and less like Ratzinger. (I'm not catholic, but still I can see how this has an impact on the world, and I hope the new pope end up being the nicest possible...)
On February 11 2013 20:09 Zandar wrote: Just hope a more modern pope with less anti gay and anti condom ideas will replace him, but I don't have high hopes.
On February 11 2013 20:09 Zandar wrote: Just hope a more modern pope with less anti gay and anti condom ideas will replace him, but I don't have high hopes.
On February 11 2013 20:32 Ragnarork wrote: This is quite big news. Indeed it's very uncommon to see this.
My guess is the scandals around the Vatican and the pope's butler... Though there could be a lot of reasons.
I don't believe it's linked to health issues...(iirc, John Paul II died while still being the pope...).
Seeing how this person is influent, I'd hope we could see someone more like JP II and less like Ratzinger. (I'm not catholic, but still I can see how this has an impact on the world, and I hope the new pope end up being the nicest possible...)
Resigning is not necessarily due to scandals, Pope Alexander VI had several mistresses and fathered children, but never resigned and died while still pope.
Likely, we'll never know the full story unless there's stuff gets leaked out. The Vatican is pretty damn secretive.
On February 11 2013 20:32 Ragnarork wrote: This is quite big news. Indeed it's very uncommon to see this.
My guess is the scandals around the Vatican and the pope's butler... Though there could be a lot of reasons.
I don't believe it's linked to health issues...(iirc, John Paul II died while still being the pope...).
Seeing how this person is influent, I'd hope we could see someone more like JP II and less like Ratzinger. (I'm not catholic, but still I can see how this has an impact on the world, and I hope the new pope end up being the nicest possible...)
Resigning is not necessarily due to scandals, Pope Alexander VI had several mistresses and fathered children, but never resigned and died while still pope.
Likely, we'll never know the full story unless there's stuff gets leaked out. The Vatican is pretty damn secretive.
Resigning just doesn't happen normally. The last one was in 1415 and it was an attempt to stop the great schism.
On February 11 2013 20:09 Zandar wrote: Just hope a more modern pope with less anti gay and anti condom ideas will replace him, but I don't have high hopes.
If such and individual is to be produced, it certainly wont be found within the Vatican, the most corrupt nest of hypocrites, liars, pedophiles and smirking lickspittles on the face of the planet. Personally I vote for Ted Haggard, in the name of epic lulz.
You know there's a higher ratio of pedophiles among sport teachers than among catholic priests, you hateful bigot. All jobs involving interactions with children attract pedophiles and are susceptible of initiating pedophile tendancies among disturbed individuals.
Back on the main subject, I hope the main instances of Catholicity wouldn't betray their core teachings, but if they do, it wouldn't matter, because this will only accelerate its ongoing death. Indeed, if nothing changes, Catholicity will be swamped out by religions which are not afraid of holding similar principles and values but with pride, even though their principles are radically different than the ones being promoted by the mass media (evangelism, sunni islam) which therefore demonize them.
Besides, I wonder why we never hear similar wishes for mufti and particulary chief rabbi. A mixture of self-hatred and cowardice ?
According to my knowledge it is nowhere written by canonic law that a pope has to stay in office until his death. Most of the popes up to about 1800 were killed/poisoned anyway so there was also no need for the rule
I think it´s a very good thing a pope let´s go of the office if he is no longer capable of leading the church succesfully. Let´s not forget the current pope is already 85 years old and had to deal with a lot of taxing matters during his reign. For example all the accusations about priests who exhibited pedophilic tendencies and dealing with all that can´t have a good effect on your health when you are as old as he is. And also all the scandals surrounding the papal bank can´t have helped. It was also always assumed, by insiders, that when he came into office in 2005 he would serve for a relative short term and perhaps act as a transition between the old pope and the newer generation.
I´m very curious who we will get next. After the 2005 election there were rumours that in a next election perhaps an African or American cardinal would be elected. That being two new strongholds of the Catholic church with the decline of church going Catholics in some of the more traditional European countries.
Also I have no high hopes of a pope with more liberal views on gay issues, woman in the church etc. These issues mainly play in more progressive western countries and as a lot of people in these countries have given up hope and left the church also their influence in the church has dwindled.
On top of that, a pope names the cardinals and the cardinals choose the new pope. So a pope will almost always appoint cardinals that hold (most of) his own views, thus ensuring that his policies and views will live on after he dies. That is also why there is such a slow (almost glacial) pace of change in the Catholic church.
Just a thing, the canonic law allow him to drop his function. It was used during the Middle Age for political reasons but Benedict XVI has always said a pope shouldn't continue if he is not phisically able to represent the Church.
This is interesting news to me - Im not a catholic, or even religious in any conventional ways, but I was under the impression that a Pope of the Catholic church could only be 'relieved of duty' by God himself (As in his death)?
He can resign it just only happened once before.
The Code of Canon Law 332 §2 states, "If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."
I think it's great news. Not only is it good that finally a pope realizes staying in office while his health isn't in good condition anymore is not optimal, perhaps this will make future popes follow his example and make the office of the pope a little more human.
On February 11 2013 20:59 Mafe wrote: My guess is he's got a diagnosis of something like Alzeheimer's disease. And he wants a conscious leader for the catholic church.
Yeah I'd say this makes the most sense. The chances that he grew a concience are lower than the chances of the next Pope being in favour of gay marriage.
On February 11 2013 20:59 Mafe wrote: My guess is he's got a diagnosis of something like Alzeheimer's disease. And he wants a conscious leader for the catholic church.
Yeah I'd say this makes the most sense. The chances that he grew a concience are lower than the chances of the next Pope being in favour of gay marriage.
Why you are even contemplating he doesn´t have a concience is beyond me. Sure he has his flaws just as any human being and I don´t agree with a lot of the current policies of the Catholic church although I still consider myself a Catholic but I also believe he acts out of his fervent believes of doing good and not an intent to do evil as you seem to be suggesting.
On February 11 2013 20:59 Mafe wrote: My guess is he's got a diagnosis of something like Alzeheimer's disease. And he wants a conscious leader for the catholic church.
Yeah I'd say this makes the most sense. The chances that he grew a concience are lower than the chances of the next Pope being in favour of gay marriage.
Why you are even contemplating he doesn´t have a concience is beyong me. Sure he has his flaws just as any human being and I don´t agree with a lot of the current policies of the Catholic church although I still consider myself a Catholic but I also believe he acts out of his fervent believes of doing good and not an intent to do evil as you seem to be suggesting.
If hope not for his own sake. If he has a concience then every aids baby in Africa is on his concience.
On February 11 2013 21:15 Erik.TheRed wrote: Goodbye, good riddance. Another person who filled the world with lies, hate and delusion and who has hopefully become irrelevant in today's world.
Now can we please keep this outdated bullshit tradition a thing of the past?
Promote discussion and interaction between religion: filled by hatred. LOL some person just love to bash the Church with retarded argumentes.
On February 11 2013 20:59 Mafe wrote: My guess is he's got a diagnosis of something like Alzeheimer's disease. And he wants a conscious leader for the catholic church.
Yeah I'd say this makes the most sense. The chances that he grew a concience are lower than the chances of the next Pope being in favour of gay marriage.
Why you are even contemplating he doesn´t have a concience is beyong me. Sure he has his flaws just as any human being and I don´t agree with a lot of the current policies of the Catholic church although I still consider myself a Catholic but I also believe he acts out of his fervent believes of doing good and not an intent to do evil as you seem to be suggesting.
If hope not for his own sake. If he has a concience then every aids baby in Africa is on his concience.
Then there's the whole bit where he personally was behind the policy to cover up pedophile priests while moving them around so they could continue to prey on children who were threatened with excommunication if they tried to involve the police. I wonder if they'll finally be able to nail him for that once his diplomatic immunity expires.
On February 11 2013 20:59 Mafe wrote: My guess is he's got a diagnosis of something like Alzeheimer's disease. And he wants a conscious leader for the catholic church.
Yeah I'd say this makes the most sense. The chances that he grew a concience are lower than the chances of the next Pope being in favour of gay marriage.
Why you are even contemplating he doesn´t have a concience is beyong me. Sure he has his flaws just as any human being and I don´t agree with a lot of the current policies of the Catholic church although I still consider myself a Catholic but I also believe he acts out of his fervent believes of doing good and not an intent to do evil as you seem to be suggesting.
If hope not for his own sake. If he has a concience then every aids baby in Africa is on his concience.
No. It would be on the church. He's not only Pope Benedict, but also Ratzinger, a human being, filling a role he actually never really wanted to fill.
Don't blame Benedict for the shortcomings of something so incredibly outdated as the catholic (or any other) religion.
On February 11 2013 20:09 Zandar wrote: Just hope a more modern pope with less anti gay and anti condom ideas will replace him, but I don't have high hopes.
If such and individual is to be produced, it certainly wont be found within the Vatican, the most corrupt nest of hypocrites, liars, pedophiles and smirking lickspittles on the face of the planet. Personally I vote for Ted Haggard, in the name of epic lulz.
You know there's a higher ratio of pedophiles among sport teachers than among catholic priests, you hateful bigot. All jobs involving interactions with children attract pedophiles and are susceptible of initiating pedophile tendancies among disturbed individuals.
Back on the main subject, I hope the main instances of Catholicity wouldn't betray their core teachings, but if they do, it wouldn't matter, because this will only accelerate its ongoing death. Indeed, if nothing changes, Catholicity will be swamped out by religions which are not afraid of holding similar principles and values but with pride, even though their principles are radically different than the ones being promoted by the mass media (evangelism, sunni islam) which therefore demonize them.
Besides, I wonder why we never hear similar wishes for mufti and particulary chief rabbi. A mixture of self-hatred and cowardice ?
What core teachings have the Vatican betrayed? As far as I know, they are as staunchly opposed to gays, contraception, abortion, women in the clergy, etc as ever. I don't think you need to fear, the Vatican remains firmly rooted in its morally bankrupt ways for some time to come I'd wager.
Time for another clown to raise to power and bring a new wave of hatred on the world. I just wish they moved the cancer of vatican outside of my country. Let the poor embrace the middle age.
On February 11 2013 20:59 Mafe wrote: My guess is he's got a diagnosis of something like Alzeheimer's disease. And he wants a conscious leader for the catholic church.
Yeah I'd say this makes the most sense. The chances that he grew a concience are lower than the chances of the next Pope being in favour of gay marriage.
Why you are even contemplating he doesn´t have a concience is beyong me. Sure he has his flaws just as any human being and I don´t agree with a lot of the current policies of the Catholic church although I still consider myself a Catholic but I also believe he acts out of his fervent believes of doing good and not an intent to do evil as you seem to be suggesting.
If hope not for his own sake. If he has a concience then every aids baby in Africa is on his concience.
No. It would be on the church. He's not only Pope Benedict, but also Ratzinger, a human being, filling a role he actually never really wanted to fill.
Don't blame Benedict for the shortcomings of something so incredibly outdated as the catholic (or any other) religion.
If he didn't wanna do it, he should've told his cardinal buddies not to elect him... I'm glad he's gone. However, there might be someone even worse just waiting for us. Only time will tell. The church can make a pretty big statement now but I'd bet that they'll fail. Still wishing him the best for his health issues though. I just didn't like his view of the world and how he used his power.
On February 11 2013 20:09 Zandar wrote: Just hope a more modern pope with less anti gay and anti condom ideas will replace him, but I don't have high hopes.
If such and individual is to be produced, it certainly wont be found within the Vatican, the most corrupt nest of hypocrites, liars, pedophiles and smirking lickspittles on the face of the planet. Personally I vote for Ted Haggard, in the name of epic lulz.
You know there's a higher ratio of pedophiles among sport teachers than among catholic priests, you hateful bigot. All jobs involving interactions with children attract pedophiles and are susceptible of initiating pedophile tendancies among disturbed individuals.
How is he a bigot for pointing out the evident reality? If anything, you are the delusional one. Sports teachers are generally people with quite poor education and/or intellect, people who otherwise would've not become much. Meanwhile, priests are supposed to be the servants of God, they're supposed to be purer, kinder and wiser than the average bloke, and yet it is the church that is one of the most corrupt and despicable systems currently operating.
And to reference what KwarK said, how can you compare a sports teacher with barely any education to the man that is supposed to be the highest exponent of God's power, God's presence on this Earth? Which makes it all the more outrageous that the latter, not the former, would be personally involved in covering up the wrong-doings and child molestation of the catholic church.
You're being irrationally butthurt, my dear poster.
On February 11 2013 20:59 Mafe wrote: My guess is he's got a diagnosis of something like Alzeheimer's disease. And he wants a conscious leader for the catholic church.
Yeah I'd say this makes the most sense. The chances that he grew a concience are lower than the chances of the next Pope being in favour of gay marriage.
Why you are even contemplating he doesn´t have a concience is beyong me. Sure he has his flaws just as any human being and I don´t agree with a lot of the current policies of the Catholic church although I still consider myself a Catholic but I also believe he acts out of his fervent believes of doing good and not an intent to do evil as you seem to be suggesting.
If hope not for his own sake. If he has a concience then every aids baby in Africa is on his concience.
No. It would be on the church. He's not only Pope Benedict, but also Ratzinger, a human being, filling a role he actually never really wanted to fill.
Don't blame Benedict for the shortcomings of something so incredibly outdated as the catholic (or any other) religion.
That's not true. Him being the leader of the church made him the only person who could change that. And he didn't.
On February 11 2013 20:59 Mafe wrote: My guess is he's got a diagnosis of something like Alzeheimer's disease. And he wants a conscious leader for the catholic church.
Yeah I'd say this makes the most sense. The chances that he grew a concience are lower than the chances of the next Pope being in favour of gay marriage.
Why you are even contemplating he doesn´t have a concience is beyong me. Sure he has his flaws just as any human being and I don´t agree with a lot of the current policies of the Catholic church although I still consider myself a Catholic but I also believe he acts out of his fervent believes of doing good and not an intent to do evil as you seem to be suggesting.
If hope not for his own sake. If he has a concience then every aids baby in Africa is on his concience.
No. It would be on the church. He's not only Pope Benedict, but also Ratzinger, a human being, filling a role he actually never really wanted to fill.
Don't blame Benedict for the shortcomings of something so incredibly outdated as the catholic (or any other) religion.
Everyone knows that the Vatican will eventually add condoms and AIDS to the very long list of things where their divinely inspired solution turned out to be a force for evil in the world. More and more Catholics are using birth control in their daily lives as family planning becomes increasingly important, the alternatives of abstinence, huge families and infanticide all being unpalatable. Furthermore as they become increasingly educated the idea of applauding a policy that causes unimaginable suffering simply because it's their religion loses support, rather than be disillusioned they will change it.
It's just nobody wants to be the Pope who says "sorry about causing hundreds of millions of AIDS deaths by telling everyone condoms will send you to hell and probably cause AIDS anyway", they'd rather have the guy a few Pope's down the line do that job, only when he says it it'll be billions. It's criminal to be honest.
This guy ran the Catholic church during some of its most damaging scandals and he said some pretty divisive things. I wonder if all the controversy had an impact on his health or something?
On February 11 2013 20:59 Mafe wrote: My guess is he's got a diagnosis of something like Alzeheimer's disease. And he wants a conscious leader for the catholic church.
Yeah I'd say this makes the most sense. The chances that he grew a concience are lower than the chances of the next Pope being in favour of gay marriage.
Why you are even contemplating he doesn´t have a concience is beyong me. Sure he has his flaws just as any human being and I don´t agree with a lot of the current policies of the Catholic church although I still consider myself a Catholic but I also believe he acts out of his fervent believes of doing good and not an intent to do evil as you seem to be suggesting.
If hope not for his own sake. If he has a concience then every aids baby in Africa is on his concience.
No. It would be on the church. He's not only Pope Benedict, but also Ratzinger, a human being, filling a role he actually never really wanted to fill.
Don't blame Benedict for the shortcomings of something so incredibly outdated as the catholic (or any other) religion.
Everyone knows that the Vatican will eventually add condoms and AIDS to the very long list of things where their divinely inspired solution turned out to be a force for evil in the world. More and more Catholics are using birth control in their daily lives as family planning becomes increasingly important, the alternatives of abstinence, huge families and infanticide all being unpalatable. Furthermore as they become increasingly educated the idea of applauding a policy that causes unimaginable suffering simply because it's their religion loses support, rather than be disillusioned they will change it.
It's just nobody wants to be the Pope who says "sorry about causing hundreds of millions of AIDS deaths by telling everyone condoms will send you to hell and probably cause AIDS anyway", they'd rather have the guy a few Pope's down the line do that job, only when he says it it'll be billions. It's criminal to be honest.
Every pope would've said that, i'm not even defending that (why would i, to me personally many if not all views of the church are borderline stupid). I said, it's not on his concience alone. It's the church that is incredibly outdated, not the pope itself (which may also be, but that does not change anything). I actually like the concept of "church" in general, the problem is that their views on so many things are warped to oblivion - destroying so many lives based on a book that may or may not be just fiction.
That's not true. Him being the leader of the church made him the only person who could change that. And he didn't.
That's bullshit, utter bullshit. It's like saying "Obama being the leader of the US made him the only person who could change the way the US looks at weapons".
He can't, there's as much politics in the vatican (even more i'd say) involved as in every other "government".
Edit: not saying that he would want to or not, just saying that IF he would want to change something, he can't.
On February 11 2013 21:27 aTnClouD wrote: Time for another clown to raise to power and bring a new wave of hatred on the world. I just wish they moved the cancer of vatican outside of my country. Let the poor embrace the middle age.
well techinally Vatican City is a seperate country from Italy.
On February 11 2013 20:59 Mafe wrote: My guess is he's got a diagnosis of something like Alzeheimer's disease. And he wants a conscious leader for the catholic church.
Yeah I'd say this makes the most sense. The chances that he grew a concience are lower than the chances of the next Pope being in favour of gay marriage.
Why you are even contemplating he doesn´t have a concience is beyong me. Sure he has his flaws just as any human being and I don´t agree with a lot of the current policies of the Catholic church although I still consider myself a Catholic but I also believe he acts out of his fervent believes of doing good and not an intent to do evil as you seem to be suggesting.
If hope not for his own sake. If he has a concience then every aids baby in Africa is on his concience.
No. It would be on the church. He's not only Pope Benedict, but also Ratzinger, a human being, filling a role he actually never really wanted to fill.
Don't blame Benedict for the shortcomings of something so incredibly outdated as the catholic (or any other) religion.
A somewhat strange sentiment. If its supreme leader cannot be held responsible for the conduct of the Vatican, then who can? God?
On February 11 2013 20:59 Mafe wrote: My guess is he's got a diagnosis of something like Alzeheimer's disease. And he wants a conscious leader for the catholic church.
Yeah I'd say this makes the most sense. The chances that he grew a concience are lower than the chances of the next Pope being in favour of gay marriage.
Why you are even contemplating he doesn´t have a concience is beyong me. Sure he has his flaws just as any human being and I don´t agree with a lot of the current policies of the Catholic church although I still consider myself a Catholic but I also believe he acts out of his fervent believes of doing good and not an intent to do evil as you seem to be suggesting.
If hope not for his own sake. If he has a concience then every aids baby in Africa is on his concience.
No. It would be on the church. He's not only Pope Benedict, but also Ratzinger, a human being, filling a role he actually never really wanted to fill.
Don't blame Benedict for the shortcomings of something so incredibly outdated as the catholic (or any other) religion.
A somewhat strange sentiment. If its supreme leader cannot be held responsible for the conduct of the Vatican, then who can? God?
Everybody who supports the organisation but yes, the pope is a good target. Then again there's so many behind the scenes schemes and stuff, you'll probably never know the full list of people to blame.
On February 11 2013 20:59 Mafe wrote: My guess is he's got a diagnosis of something like Alzeheimer's disease. And he wants a conscious leader for the catholic church.
Yeah I'd say this makes the most sense. The chances that he grew a concience are lower than the chances of the next Pope being in favour of gay marriage.
Why you are even contemplating he doesn´t have a concience is beyong me. Sure he has his flaws just as any human being and I don´t agree with a lot of the current policies of the Catholic church although I still consider myself a Catholic but I also believe he acts out of his fervent believes of doing good and not an intent to do evil as you seem to be suggesting.
If hope not for his own sake. If he has a concience then every aids baby in Africa is on his concience.
No. It would be on the church. He's not only Pope Benedict, but also Ratzinger, a human being, filling a role he actually never really wanted to fill.
Don't blame Benedict for the shortcomings of something so incredibly outdated as the catholic (or any other) religion.
A somewhat strange sentiment. If its supreme leader cannot be held responsible for the conduct of the Vatican, then who can? God?
Everybody who supports the organisation but yes, the pope is a good target.
The Vatican is a lot less liberal than most Catholics who live in the real world. Having to deal with real life issues like being unable to afford to support another child don't come up much for priests with billions in the bank,.
On February 11 2013 20:59 Mafe wrote: My guess is he's got a diagnosis of something like Alzeheimer's disease. And he wants a conscious leader for the catholic church.
Yeah I'd say this makes the most sense. The chances that he grew a concience are lower than the chances of the next Pope being in favour of gay marriage.
Why you are even contemplating he doesn´t have a concience is beyong me. Sure he has his flaws just as any human being and I don´t agree with a lot of the current policies of the Catholic church although I still consider myself a Catholic but I also believe he acts out of his fervent believes of doing good and not an intent to do evil as you seem to be suggesting.
If hope not for his own sake. If he has a concience then every aids baby in Africa is on his concience.
No. It would be on the church. He's not only Pope Benedict, but also Ratzinger, a human being, filling a role he actually never really wanted to fill.
Don't blame Benedict for the shortcomings of something so incredibly outdated as the catholic (or any other) religion.
Everyone knows that the Vatican will eventually add condoms and AIDS to the very long list of things where their divinely inspired solution turned out to be a force for evil in the world. More and more Catholics are using birth control in their daily lives as family planning becomes increasingly important, the alternatives of abstinence, huge families and infanticide all being unpalatable. Furthermore as they become increasingly educated the idea of applauding a policy that causes unimaginable suffering simply because it's their religion loses support, rather than be disillusioned they will change it.
It's just nobody wants to be the Pope who says "sorry about causing hundreds of millions of AIDS deaths by telling everyone condoms will send you to hell and probably cause AIDS anyway", they'd rather have the guy a few Pope's down the line do that job, only when he says it it'll be billions. It's criminal to be honest.
Every pope would've said that, i'm not even defending that (why would i, to me personally many if not all views of the church are borderline stupid). I said, it's not on his concience alone. It's the church that is incredibly outdated, not the pope itself (which may also be, but that does not change anything). I actually like the concept of "church" in general, the problem is that their views on so many things are warped to oblivion - destroying so many lives based on a book that may or may not be just fiction.
That's not true. Him being the leader of the church made him the only person who could change that. And he didn't.
That's bullshit, utter bullshit. It's like saying "Obama being the leader of the US made him the only person who could change the way the US looks at weapons".
He can't, there's as much politics in the vatican (even more i'd say) involved as in every other "government".
Edit: not saying that he would want to or not, just saying that IF he would want to change something, he can't.
Well maybe not the only one, but for sure he was the person with the most power in the Church. If anyone could have made a difference it was him. Not some cardinal or priest.
I've been Roman Catholic since I was born (I haven't been to Church that wasn't on Christmas or Easter for a while) and I thought you had to be Pope until you died...
I really don't care who is Pope, I rarely find myself agreeing with their stance on many modern day issues lol.
On February 11 2013 20:59 Mafe wrote: My guess is he's got a diagnosis of something like Alzeheimer's disease. And he wants a conscious leader for the catholic church.
Yeah I'd say this makes the most sense. The chances that he grew a concience are lower than the chances of the next Pope being in favour of gay marriage.
Why you are even contemplating he doesn´t have a concience is beyong me. Sure he has his flaws just as any human being and I don´t agree with a lot of the current policies of the Catholic church although I still consider myself a Catholic but I also believe he acts out of his fervent believes of doing good and not an intent to do evil as you seem to be suggesting.
If hope not for his own sake. If he has a concience then every aids baby in Africa is on his concience.
No. It would be on the church. He's not only Pope Benedict, but also Ratzinger, a human being, filling a role he actually never really wanted to fill.
Don't blame Benedict for the shortcomings of something so incredibly outdated as the catholic (or any other) religion.
A somewhat strange sentiment. If its supreme leader cannot be held responsible for the conduct of the Vatican, then who can? God?
Everybody who supports the organisation but yes, the pope is a good target.
The Vatican is a lot less liberal than most Catholics who live in the real world. Having to deal with real life issues like being unable to afford to support another child don't come up much for priests with billions in the bank,.
Oh I agree. Being in Rome and visiting the Vatican made me sick to my stomach. That's when I realized what a fucking bunch of hypocrites the Catholic Church actually are. The fucking chair he sits his ass on could feed the people they're "praying for".
this thread is disgusting. feel free to make a new "we hate the church" thread and stand on your moral pedestal there. seriously, i didn't even know how a starcraft site becomes a breeding ground for anti-papal sentiments.
for other sane onlookers, let's just discuss this surprising decision by a very influential (but ordinary) man.
On February 11 2013 20:05 ELA wrote: According to an Italian news agency ANSA, Pope Benedict XVI, head of the Catholic religion is stepping down from office.
I am pretty sure he is the head of the catholic chruch.
On February 11 2013 20:14 Bleak wrote: Brace yourselves. Darth Ratzinger is going to reveal his true self and declare that he is a Sith Lord.
On February 11 2013 21:58 shadymmj wrote: this thread is disgusting. feel free to make a new "we hate the church" thread and stand on your moral pedestal there. seriously, i didn't even know how a starcraft site becomes a breeding ground for anti-papal sentiments.
for other sane onlookers, let's just discuss this surprising decision by a very influential (but ordinary) man.
From what I read there are as many believers as non believers in this thread. TL is a discussion site. If you only want to discuss with people who share your opinion you might look for another site for that. Why don't you try to make others see your opinion instead of saying this thread is disgusting.
On February 11 2013 20:09 Zandar wrote: Just hope a more modern pope with less anti gay and anti condom ideas will replace him, but I don't have high hopes.
If such and individual is to be produced, it certainly wont be found within the Vatican, the most corrupt nest of hypocrites, liars, pedophiles and smirking lickspittles on the face of the planet. Personally I vote for Ted Haggard, in the name of epic lulz.
You know there's a higher ratio of pedophiles among sport teachers than among catholic priests, you hateful bigot. All jobs involving interactions with children attract pedophiles and are susceptible of initiating pedophile tendancies among disturbed individuals.
How is he a bigot for pointing out the evident reality? If anything, you are the delusional one. Sports teachers are generally people with quite poor education and/or intellect, people who otherwise would've not become much. Meanwhile, priests are supposed to be the servants of God, they're supposed to be purer, kinder and wiser than the average bloke, and yet it is the church that is one of the most corrupt and despicable systems currently operating.
And to reference what KwarK said, how can you compare a sports teacher with barely any education to the man that is supposed to be the highest exponent of God's power, God's presence on this Earth? Which makes it all the more outrageous that the latter, not the former, would be personally involved in covering up the wrong-doings and child molestation of the catholic church.
You're being irrationally butthurt, my dear poster.
I'm sorry, but seriously... you are talking about child molestation, and not only do you call someone butt hurt as if you couldn't come up with anything less obnoxious to write, but your quote is I love lolicon... I mean... I couldn't make this up.
personally this does not affect me, globally I am sure it will have some impact. but like any presidential election, I see this more as a time to get a new face, not new policies. changes in policies are slow and rarely impacted by a new mascot. (ex 2nd obama term, still in the middle east promise what you want but don't expect results)
On February 11 2013 21:58 shadymmj wrote: this thread is disgusting. feel free to make a new "we hate the church" thread and stand on your moral pedestal there. seriously, i didn't even know how a starcraft site becomes a breeding ground for anti-papal sentiments.
for other sane onlookers, let's just discuss this surprising decision by a very influential (but ordinary) man.
I could list quite a few things he said and did that are more disgusting than anything in this thread. It's part of who he was as a pope and of course it'll be talked about.
On February 11 2013 21:58 shadymmj wrote: this thread is disgusting. feel free to make a new "we hate the church" thread and stand on your moral pedestal there. seriously, i didn't even know how a starcraft site becomes a breeding ground for anti-papal sentiments.
for other sane onlookers, let's just discuss this surprising decision by a very influential (but ordinary) man.
Maybe it has to do with how many people the pope has pissed off with extremist and outdated views. In the ordinary world we would call such a person insane but unfortunately the pope does not live in the ordinary world. He lives in a microcosm built up on delusions and bullshit which we call the Vatican. Well, at least the place looks nice.
And if you don't know why so many people are legitimately pissed off at the organization, here's a video covering just a few reasons.
On February 11 2013 21:58 shadymmj wrote: this thread is disgusting. feel free to make a new "we hate the church" thread and stand on your moral pedestal there. seriously, i didn't even know how a starcraft site becomes a breeding ground for anti-papal sentiments.
for other sane onlookers, let's just discuss this surprising decision by a very influential (but ordinary) man.
I could list quite a few things he said and did that are more disgusting than anything in this thread. It's part of who he was as a pope and of course it'll be talked about.
please do, as long as you have widely accepted proof of your claims. oh let's keep it to the pope and not the church as a whole.
On February 11 2013 21:58 shadymmj wrote: this thread is disgusting. feel free to make a new "we hate the church" thread and stand on your moral pedestal there. seriously, i didn't even know how a starcraft site becomes a breeding ground for anti-papal sentiments.
for other sane onlookers, let's just discuss this surprising decision by a very influential (but ordinary) man.
I could list quite a few things he said and did that are more disgusting than anything in this thread. It's part of who he was as a pope and of course it'll be talked about.
please do, as long as you have widely accepted proof of your claims. oh let's keep it to the pope and not the church as a whole.
Paraphrasing: "condoms will send you to hell". That certainly helped AIDS, right? I'll be looking into more later if I feel like it, am at work right now so won't be doing too much research atm. All I know is he said some ridiculous things + was personally involved in trying to cover up child abuse within the church.
Isn't it beautiful how you can make such videos about the pope without any ambassador dying?
This. A thousand times....
You'll piss off people, but it won't end by a rocket shot at an embassy...
On February 11 2013 21:58 shadymmj wrote: this thread is disgusting. feel free to make a new "we hate the church" thread and stand on your moral pedestal there. seriously, i didn't even know how a starcraft site becomes a breeding ground for anti-papal sentiments.
for other sane onlookers, let's just discuss this surprising decision by a very influential (but ordinary) man.
I usually consider myself a believer, if not a christian (but not "attached" to a community like the catholics, orthodox, you name it), but can't deny the fact he said truly horrible things...
But I think it's good to emphasize on the fact that a lot of christian actually DON'T think the same way and have evolved, living while following the principle present mostly in the new testament, which are quite respectable when they talk about helping the poor and promote peace (in my opinion), and actually disagree with, for example, the disgusting protest we had in France the 13th January, protesting against gay marriage.
On February 11 2013 21:58 shadymmj wrote: this thread is disgusting. feel free to make a new "we hate the church" thread and stand on your moral pedestal there. seriously, i didn't even know how a starcraft site becomes a breeding ground for anti-papal sentiments.
for other sane onlookers, let's just discuss this surprising decision by a very influential (but ordinary) man.
Not that I care much for the way some in this thread has chosen to word their opinions I'd say that I care less for yours. This isn't some "breeding ground for anti-papal sentiments". Take a step back and look at their sentiments, maybe you'll find they are rational.
I agree that some of it doesn't belong in this thread, but in my opinion this is not the way to address it.
On February 11 2013 21:58 shadymmj wrote: this thread is disgusting. feel free to make a new "we hate the church" thread and stand on your moral pedestal there. seriously, i didn't even know how a starcraft site becomes a breeding ground for anti-papal sentiments.
for other sane onlookers, let's just discuss this surprising decision by a very influential (but ordinary) man.
I could list quite a few things he said and did that are more disgusting than anything in this thread. It's part of who he was as a pope and of course it'll be talked about.
please do, as long as you have widely accepted proof of your claims. oh let's keep it to the pope and not the church as a whole.
Paraphrasing: "condoms will send you to hell". That certainly helped AIDS, right?
that's a ridiculous paraphrase and you know it.
look, i agree with your sentiments on condom use, but no, afaik, commiting a sin will not directly send you to hell.
On February 11 2013 22:02 Zandar wrote: From what I read there are as many believers as non believers in this thread. TL is a discussion site. If you only want to discuss with people who share your opinion you might look for another site for that. Why don't you try to make others see your opinion instead of saying this thread is disgusting.
Just from the first page:
On February 11 2013 20:19 llIH wrote: Wish for a more educated Pope next time.
On February 11 2013 20:15 sertas wrote: so why doesnt god just give him strength to continue? Something is fishy here
On February 11 2013 20:51 ButtCraft wrote: Because he grew a conscience
Very nice discussion we are having here... basically ITT: atheist bashing catholic church, beeing mad they can't do the same about ismal or judaism as they don't want to be considered as racists.
I remember when I was small I would read on the news about John Paul going around the world to spread a message of peace. These days all I read about are rather negative: anti-homosexual, anti-abortion comments coming from Vatican.
Not a big fan of the religion but I think his resignation sets a good example of his successors: this an important enough job that requires someone with the stamina.
Where's your god when you need the strength to carry on with your duties hmmm?
On February 11 2013 22:02 Zandar wrote: From what I read there are as many believers as non believers in this thread. TL is a discussion site. If you only want to discuss with people who share your opinion you might look for another site for that. Why don't you try to make others see your opinion instead of saying this thread is disgusting.
On February 11 2013 20:51 ButtCraft wrote: Because he grew a conscience
Very nice discussion we are having here... basically ITT: atheist bashing catholic church, beeing mad they can't do the same about ismal or judaism as they don't want to be considered as racists.
On February 11 2013 22:06 shadymmj wrote: yes, but there's very little discussion ongoing about the actual news here.
Challenging his failure to address either of the two big issues destroying the credibility of his church and the lack of any real legacy is a valid remark following the end of his reign. Consider it a job review, albeit one leaving a lot of blood on his hands.
On February 11 2013 21:58 shadymmj wrote: this thread is disgusting. feel free to make a new "we hate the church" thread and stand on your moral pedestal there. seriously, i didn't even know how a starcraft site becomes a breeding ground for anti-papal sentiments.
for other sane onlookers, let's just discuss this surprising decision by a very influential (but ordinary) man.
I could list quite a few things he said and did that are more disgusting than anything in this thread. It's part of who he was as a pope and of course it'll be talked about.
please do, as long as you have widely accepted proof of your claims. oh let's keep it to the pope and not the church as a whole.
Paraphrasing: "condoms will send you to hell". That certainly helped AIDS, right?
that's a ridiculous paraphrase and you know it.
look, i agree with your sentiments on condom use, but no, afaik, commiting a sin will not directly send you to hell.
You know what will send you to hell? Trick question, nothing will send you to hell. What DID send some people to living hell though is him telling believers that they shouldn't use condoms when AIDS is a real threat and he's aware of it.
Oh right, and anti-homosexuality + anti-abortion. Completely forgot about those. All in all he fucked up. He could've done a lot better but he didn't, the opposite actually. He made the Church's image even worse. He's been pretty much the exact pope he shouldn't have been and there's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing that out.
On February 11 2013 20:59 Mafe wrote: My guess is he's got a diagnosis of something like Alzeheimer's disease. And he wants a conscious leader for the catholic church.
Yeah I'd say this makes the most sense. The chances that he grew a concience are lower than the chances of the next Pope being in favour of gay marriage.
Why you are even contemplating he doesn´t have a concience is beyond me. Sure he has his flaws just as any human being and I don´t agree with a lot of the current policies of the Catholic church although I still consider myself a Catholic but I also believe he acts out of his fervent believes of doing good and not an intent to do evil as you seem to be suggesting.
For the record to my Catholic fellows here. I'm a non believer somewhere between agnost and atheist. I don't hate Catholics at all. I have neighbours, family members who are catholic. I've been to a catholic school as a kid. Even had catholic girlfiends.
I just think it's time for a more modern pope, and yes I think Benedictis did some serious harm. But can I say that without being anti catholic? I sure hope I can.
On February 11 2013 21:58 shadymmj wrote: this thread is disgusting. feel free to make a new "we hate the church" thread and stand on your moral pedestal there. seriously, i didn't even know how a starcraft site becomes a breeding ground for anti-papal sentiments.
for other sane onlookers, let's just discuss this surprising decision by a very influential (but ordinary) man.
Nothing we write here is even remotely comparable to the heinous crimes against humanity and all decency committed by the Vatican. It is deserving of all the scorn it gets, and more. It epitomizes the worst elements of christianity, the teachings of the kind and generous man they profess to worship forgotten or simply ignored in favour of amassing wealth and temporal power.
The Vatican is a blight on the world, that has monopolized this absurd notion of a middleman between an individual and his/her god as a means to acquire power over them, nothing more.
On February 11 2013 20:59 Mafe wrote: My guess is he's got a diagnosis of something like Alzeheimer's disease. And he wants a conscious leader for the catholic church.
Yeah I'd say this makes the most sense. The chances that he grew a concience are lower than the chances of the next Pope being in favour of gay marriage.
Why you are even contemplating he doesn´t have a concience is beyong me. Sure he has his flaws just as any human being and I don´t agree with a lot of the current policies of the Catholic church although I still consider myself a Catholic but I also believe he acts out of his fervent believes of doing good and not an intent to do evil as you seem to be suggesting.
If hope not for his own sake. If he has a concience then every aids baby in Africa is on his concience.
No. It would be on the church. He's not only Pope Benedict, but also Ratzinger, a human being, filling a role he actually never really wanted to fill.
Don't blame Benedict for the shortcomings of something so incredibly outdated as the catholic (or any other) religion.
A somewhat strange sentiment. If its supreme leader cannot be held responsible for the conduct of the Vatican, then who can? God?
Everybody who supports the organisation but yes, the pope is a good target.
The Vatican is a lot less liberal than most Catholics who live in the real world. Having to deal with real life issues like being unable to afford to support another child don't come up much for priests with billions in the bank,.
The first part at least is true. The second part I don´t know. I don´t think your average priest in most countries has a lot of money. But being forced into celibacy a priest can never fully understand the workings of supporting a family and making morgage payments (houses being normally provided by the church). For sure the big TV preachers in the USA make millions but in the Netherlands the church is actually losing money fairly rapidly. There is also a severe shortage of priests. In my city for example, there is only 1 priest for 5 churches and he is 80. The other 5 chuches are being tended by an Indian priest that had to be imported.
However my experience with the clergy is that if you as a community talk with them about your concerns with how the Catholic church as a whole operates and dictates its policies, a good deal of them actually agree. Unfortunately the hierarchical structure of the church is so that these moderate voices will never be raised to a position of power or real influence (even on a local level). The only bright spot I see is that the biggest critics on how the church operates are the retired priests as they don´t have to be afraid anymore about repercussions or being removed from their job.
On February 11 2013 22:15 Zandar wrote: For the record to my Catholic fellows here. I'm a non believer somewhere between agnost and atheist. I don't hate Catholics at all. I have neighbours, family members who are catholic. I've been to a catholic school as a kid. Even had catholic girlfiends.
I just think it's time for a more modern pope, and yes I think Benedictis did some serious harm. But can I say that without being anti catholic? I sure hope I can.
Yes of course you can. The church doesn't necessarily equal catholic belief, it's just supposed to represent it. Critic against the representation =!= critic against the belief itself.
On February 11 2013 21:58 shadymmj wrote: this thread is disgusting. feel free to make a new "we hate the church" thread and stand on your moral pedestal there. seriously, i didn't even know how a starcraft site becomes a breeding ground for anti-papal sentiments.
for other sane onlookers, let's just discuss this surprising decision by a very influential (but ordinary) man.
Nothing we write here is even remotely comparable to the heinous crimes against humanity and all decency committed by the Vatican. It is deserving of all the scorn it gets, and more. It epitomizes the worst elements of christianity, the teachings of the kind and generous man they profess to worship forgotten or simply ignored in favour of amassing wealth and temporal power.
The Vatican is a blight on the world, that has monopolized this absurd notion of a middleman between an individual and his/her god as a means to acquire power over them, nothing more.
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.
On February 11 2013 22:15 Zandar wrote: For the record to my Catholic fellows here. I'm a non believer somewhere between agnost and atheist. I don't hate Catholics at all. I have neighbours, family members who are catholic. I've been to a catholic school as a kid. Even had catholic girlfiends.
I just think it's time for a more modern pope, and yes I think Benedictis did some serious harm. But can I say that without being anti catholic? I sure hope I can.
Yes of course you can. The church doesn't necessarily equal catholic belief, it's just supposed to represent it. Critic against the representation =!= critic against the belief itself.
On February 11 2013 22:15 Zandar wrote: For the record to my Catholic fellows here. I'm a non believer somewhere between agnost and atheist. I don't hate Catholics at all. I have neighbours, family members who are catholic. I've been to a catholic school as a kid. Even had catholic girlfiends.
I just think it's time for a more modern pope, and yes I think Benedictis did some serious harm. But can I say that without being anti catholic? I sure hope I can.
Yes of course you can. The church doesn't necessarily equal catholic belief, it's just supposed to represent it. Critic against the representation =!= critic against the belief itself.
Exactly. The problem is that the representation it gives is pretty ugly, and sometimes lead (in heated debates) to the confuson between the representation and the people represented by it...
Then, Zandar, you're not "anti-catholic" by saying you didn't like Benedict... I believe (though I can't confirm, obv) a lot of christians, and even a lot of catholics didn't like him (based on what I hear around me).
When you put Benedict in contrast with John Paul II, who did a lot for peace, who tried to gather a lot of religion to talk about peace, who defended Vatican II council rules (which, basically, opened the church and "modernized" it by like a few hundreds year leap forward ~~), then you see there can be better people at this role....
On February 11 2013 21:58 shadymmj wrote: this thread is disgusting. feel free to make a new "we hate the church" thread and stand on your moral pedestal there. seriously, i didn't even know how a starcraft site becomes a breeding ground for anti-papal sentiments.
for other sane onlookers, let's just discuss this surprising decision by a very influential (but ordinary) man.
Nothing we write here is even remotely comparable to the heinous crimes against humanity and all decency committed by the Vatican. It is deserving of all the scorn it gets, and more. It epitomizes the worst elements of christianity, the teachings of the kind and generous man they profess to worship forgotten or simply ignored in favour of amassing wealth and temporal power.
The Vatican is a blight on the world, that has monopolized this absurd notion of a middleman between an individual and his/her god as a means to acquire power over them, nothing more.
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.
How can you not see anything wrong with advocating a strong stance against homosexuality? Abortion, fine, that's still somehow a valid discussion, but not even in the US should homosexuality actually be something you can really have an opinion about. Or you can have an opinion, but you would just prove yourself to be a bigot and ignorant. Basically, saying it's acceptable to advocate a strong stance against homosexuality is just as bad as saying it's acceptable to advocate a strong stance against blacks. It's just not acceptable at all.
On February 11 2013 22:15 Zandar wrote: I'm a non believer somewhere between agnost and atheist.
[nitpick] So you're an agnostic atheist? There's no "in between" since agnostic-gnostic and theist-atheist are completely different scales. [/nitpick]
I know lol. I tend to have a hard time making up my mind. I don't believe at all, but hardcore atheists sometimes sound like believers themselves. Which makes me move to the "I don't know and I for sure don't care" position, which fits agnost better.
On February 11 2013 20:59 Mafe wrote: My guess is he's got a diagnosis of something like Alzeheimer's disease. And he wants a conscious leader for the catholic church.
Yeah I'd say this makes the most sense. The chances that he grew a concience are lower than the chances of the next Pope being in favour of gay marriage.
Why you are even contemplating he doesn´t have a concience is beyong me. Sure he has his flaws just as any human being and I don´t agree with a lot of the current policies of the Catholic church although I still consider myself a Catholic but I also believe he acts out of his fervent believes of doing good and not an intent to do evil as you seem to be suggesting.
If hope not for his own sake. If he has a concience then every aids baby in Africa is on his concience.
No. It would be on the church. He's not only Pope Benedict, but also Ratzinger, a human being, filling a role he actually never really wanted to fill.
Don't blame Benedict for the shortcomings of something so incredibly outdated as the catholic (or any other) religion.
A somewhat strange sentiment. If its supreme leader cannot be held responsible for the conduct of the Vatican, then who can? God?
Everybody who supports the organisation but yes, the pope is a good target.
The Vatican is a lot less liberal than most Catholics who live in the real world. Having to deal with real life issues like being unable to afford to support another child don't come up much for priests with billions in the bank,.
The first part at least is true. The second part I don´t know. I don´t think your average priest in most countries has a lot of money. But being forced into celibacy a priest can never fully understand the workings of supporting a family and making morgage payments (houses being normally provided by the church). For sure the big TV preachers in the USA make millions but in the Netherlands the church is actually losing money fairly rapidly. There is also a severe shortage of priests. In my city for example, there is only 1 priest for 5 churches and he is 80. The other 5 chuches are being tended by an Indian priest that had to be imported.
However my experience with the clergy is that if you as a community talk with them about your concerns with how the Catholic church as a whole operates and dictates its policies, a good deal of them actually agree. Unfortunately the hierarchical structure of the church is so that these moderate voices will never be raised to a position of power or real influence (even on a local level). The only bright spot I see is that the biggest critics on how the church operates are the retired priests as they don´t have to be afraid anymore about repercussions or being removed from their job.
I don't disagree that individual priests lack the wealth of the Vatican, nor that they actually witness the struggles of real people but they are just as disenfranchised and exploited by the intuition as the regular members. In the UK we have an expression, "wouldn't know the price of a pint of milk" that we use for politicians who have no clue about the lives of ordinary people. But the Vatican, with it's segregated education from an early age, denial of family life, obscene wealth and total lack of accountability making laws for the poorest people on earth is so far beyond that. Only the Vatican could teach abstinence alongside female submission to male authority and then make abortion a sin.
On February 11 2013 21:58 shadymmj wrote: this thread is disgusting. feel free to make a new "we hate the church" thread and stand on your moral pedestal there. seriously, i didn't even know how a starcraft site becomes a breeding ground for anti-papal sentiments.
for other sane onlookers, let's just discuss this surprising decision by a very influential (but ordinary) man.
Nothing we write here is even remotely comparable to the heinous crimes against humanity and all decency committed by the Vatican. It is deserving of all the scorn it gets, and more. It epitomizes the worst elements of christianity, the teachings of the kind and generous man they profess to worship forgotten or simply ignored in favour of amassing wealth and temporal power.
The Vatican is a blight on the world, that has monopolized this absurd notion of a middleman between an individual and his/her god as a means to acquire power over them, nothing more.
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.
Why on earth should the Vatican be granted some kind of moral exemption? Are you suggesting that we should be more tolerant of their disgusting doctrines and rank hypocrisy because they are founded in faith?
Regardless, he was a bad pope because he was a bad pope, just like most others. His views are the views of those who elected him, otherwise someone else would have been chosen. I see no reason to expect a more progressive pope this time. The problem is not with this pope, or the previous, or the next. It is a systemic cancer in the Vatican itself.
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.
It's sad to see him go, considered I see him everyday in an electricity provider advertisment.
Don't look if you have a anti gay marriage stance, you will find this offensive. + Show Spoiler +
On February 11 2013 22:15 Zandar wrote: For the record to my Catholic fellows here. I'm a non believer somewhere between agnost and atheist. I don't hate Catholics at all. I have neighbours, family members who are catholic. I've been to a catholic school as a kid. Even had catholic girlfiends.
I just think it's time for a more modern pope, and yes I think Benedictis did some serious harm. But can I say that without being anti catholic? I sure hope I can.
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.
On February 11 2013 22:15 Zandar wrote: I'm a non believer somewhere between agnost and atheist.
[nitpick] So you're an agnostic atheist? There's no "in between" since agnostic-gnostic and theist-atheist are completely different scales. [/nitpick]
I know lol. I tend to have a hard time making up my mind. I don't believe at all, but hardcore atheists sometimes sound like believers themselves. Which makes me move to the "I don't know and I for sure don't care" position, which fits agnost better.
Would you say you're more of a pure Neutral, Neutral good, or Loyal neutral?
On February 11 2013 22:15 Zandar wrote: I'm a non believer somewhere between agnost and atheist.
[nitpick] So you're an agnostic atheist? There's no "in between" since agnostic-gnostic and theist-atheist are completely different scales. [/nitpick]
I know lol. I tend to have a hard time making up my mind. I don't believe at all, but hardcore atheists sometimes sound like believers themselves. Which makes me move to the "I don't know and I for sure don't care" position, which fits agnost better.
All of the "hardcore" atheists that aren't just bashing religion without any reasoning, like Dawkins for example, are agnostic atheists. It's the idea that we can never be certain that there is no god, but neither is there any evidence to say that there is. The big difference between them and you is that they care because religion is still a powerful force in today's society.
On February 11 2013 22:15 Zandar wrote: I'm a non believer somewhere between agnost and atheist.
[nitpick] So you're an agnostic atheist? There's no "in between" since agnostic-gnostic and theist-atheist are completely different scales. [/nitpick]
I know lol. I tend to have a hard time making up my mind. I don't believe at all, but hardcore atheists sometimes sound like believers themselves. Which makes me move to the "I don't know and I for sure don't care" position, which fits agnost better.
Would you say you're more of a pure Neutral, Neutral good, or Loyal neutral?
He definitely looks like a pure neutral. "I don't know and I don't care". I think there's no need to find a specific name for it ^_^. Well... maybe a lazy agnostic, don't know and don't want to try to find out, but that sounds a bit negative (with lazyness).
I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health.
On February 11 2013 22:15 Zandar wrote: For the record to my Catholic fellows here. I'm a non believer somewhere between agnost and atheist. I don't hate Catholics at all. I have neighbours, family members who are catholic. I've been to a catholic school as a kid. Even had catholic girlfiends.
I just think it's time for a more modern pope, and yes I think Benedictis did some serious harm. But can I say that without being anti catholic? I sure hope I can.
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.
Astonishing how rude the vast majority of these posts are. Way too many to quote. If I said anyting even remotely as hateful these posts about gays or another country I would get instant ban/warning. Shows how biased this website is suppose. I'm not catholic but I am a christian. Your desire to sound like your "against the grain" and "cool" does not outweigh how important the pope is to at least 1 billion people.
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.
On February 11 2013 22:15 Zandar wrote: I'm a non believer somewhere between agnost and atheist.
[nitpick] So you're an agnostic atheist? There's no "in between" since agnostic-gnostic and theist-atheist are completely different scales. [/nitpick]
I know lol. I tend to have a hard time making up my mind. I don't believe at all, but hardcore atheists sometimes sound like believers themselves. Which makes me move to the "I don't know and I for sure don't care" position, which fits agnost better.
Would you say you're more of a pure Neutral, Neutral good, or Loyal neutral?
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.
On February 11 2013 22:15 Zandar wrote: For the record to my Catholic fellows here. I'm a non believer somewhere between agnost and atheist. I don't hate Catholics at all. I have neighbours, family members who are catholic. I've been to a catholic school as a kid. Even had catholic girlfiends.
I just think it's time for a more modern pope, and yes I think Benedictis did some serious harm. But can I say that without being anti catholic? I sure hope I can.
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.
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.
On February 11 2013 22:15 Zandar wrote: For the record to my Catholic fellows here. I'm a non believer somewhere between agnost and atheist. I don't hate Catholics at all. I have neighbours, family members who are catholic. I've been to a catholic school as a kid. Even had catholic girlfiends.
I just think it's time for a more modern pope, and yes I think Benedictis did some serious harm. But can I say that without being anti catholic? I sure hope I can.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
On February 11 2013 22:15 Zandar wrote: For the record to my Catholic fellows here. I'm a non believer somewhere between agnost and atheist. I don't hate Catholics at all. I have neighbours, family members who are catholic. I've been to a catholic school as a kid. Even had catholic girlfiends.
I just think it's time for a more modern pope, and yes I think Benedictis did some serious harm. But can I say that without being anti catholic? I sure hope I can.
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.
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.
On February 11 2013 22:15 Zandar wrote: For the record to my Catholic fellows here. I'm a non believer somewhere between agnost and atheist. I don't hate Catholics at all. I have neighbours, family members who are catholic. I've been to a catholic school as a kid. Even had catholic girlfiends.
I just think it's time for a more modern pope, and yes I think Benedictis did some serious harm. But can I say that without being anti catholic? I sure hope I can.
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.
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
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
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.
On February 11 2013 21:58 shadymmj wrote: this thread is disgusting. feel free to make a new "we hate the church" thread and stand on your moral pedestal there. seriously, i didn't even know how a starcraft site becomes a breeding ground for anti-papal sentiments.
for other sane onlookers, let's just discuss this surprising decision by a very influential (but ordinary) man.
Nothing we write here is even remotely comparable to the heinous crimes against humanity and all decency committed by the Vatican. It is deserving of all the scorn it gets, and more. It epitomizes the worst elements of christianity, the teachings of the kind and generous man they profess to worship forgotten or simply ignored in favour of amassing wealth and temporal power.
The Vatican is a blight on the world, that has monopolized this absurd notion of a middleman between an individual and his/her god as a means to acquire power over them, nothing more.
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.
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.
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...
On February 11 2013 22:15 Zandar wrote: For the record to my Catholic fellows here. I'm a non believer somewhere between agnost and atheist. I don't hate Catholics at all. I have neighbours, family members who are catholic. I've been to a catholic school as a kid. Even had catholic girlfiends.
I just think it's time for a more modern pope, and yes I think Benedictis did some serious harm. But can I say that without being anti catholic? I sure hope I can.
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.
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.
But he did say don't have sex. The church forbids artificial birth control, but supports abstinence. You seem to be misinformed.
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?
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.
On February 11 2013 22:09 DarkLordOlli wrote: Paraphrasing: "condoms will send you to hell". That certainly helped AIDS, right?
that's a ridiculous paraphrase and you know it.
look, i agree with your sentiments on condom use, but no, afaik, commiting a sin will not directly send you to hell.
You know what will send you to hell? Trick question, nothing will send you to hell. What DID send some people to living hell though is him telling believers that they shouldn't use condoms when AIDS is a real threat and he's aware of it.
The irony of your made up quote is that this pope actually sad something about condoms and AIDS, only it was later revoked by other Vatican officials (yes, cardinals revoked their own infallible head of church):
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.
On February 11 2013 22:15 Zandar wrote: For the record to my Catholic fellows here. I'm a non believer somewhere between agnost and atheist. I don't hate Catholics at all. I have neighbours, family members who are catholic. I've been to a catholic school as a kid. Even had catholic girlfiends.
I just think it's time for a more modern pope, and yes I think Benedictis did some serious harm. But can I say that without being anti catholic? I sure hope I can.
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.
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.
This is blatantly false. The first and foremost contraception method promoted by the Church has always been and always will be abstinence. I don't contest his position about condoms, but that is hardly unique for his pontificate as popes have been saying the same since Paul VI. Benedictus XVI has also recently accepted the use of condoms in these difficult situations.
But hey, let's crucify a man based on his appearance ("he's ugly") and on what he (supposedly) represents. Guess people here need a Big Bad to vent their frustrations on.
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?
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.
Almost impossible to follow? Maybe if you lack self control.
The problem is people don't like to take responsibility for their actions. Much easier to blame other people. If a doctor tells you not do something or you'll get sick, and you do it anyway because you're addicted to it, is it his fault when you get sick?
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?
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.
Promoting abstinence is pointless, it runs contrary to fundamental human biology. It is not a realistic option and should not be considered a solution.
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?
While his point is pretty stupidly expressed, his claim is not entirely outlandish. Obviously, it's not about sexual orientation as it is about unprotected anal sex, but the correlation is not entirely false.
However to say "they pose such a risk to mankind" is beyond absurd. No, they pose far less risk than masses of impoverished, uneducated, disease-ridden people boning like crazy in third world countries.
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.
The main vocation of catholicity is not the promotion of condom and libertinage. Churches promote fidelity and abstinence.
In case you didn't know, the VIH tests are free in sub-sahara Africa. Thus if Subsaharan Africans were acting like true Catholics, their AIDS rate would become far inferior to the ones of atheist groups among first world countries.
undeniable truth is that HIV spreads far more easily through anal sex and that homosexuals are more likely to engage in anal sex, which is in itself also contrary to christian beliefs (among other religions...)
On February 11 2013 22:15 Zandar wrote: For the record to my Catholic fellows here. I'm a non believer somewhere between agnost and atheist. I don't hate Catholics at all. I have neighbours, family members who are catholic. I've been to a catholic school as a kid. Even had catholic girlfiends.
I just think it's time for a more modern pope, and yes I think Benedictis did some serious harm. But can I say that without being anti catholic? I sure hope I can.
I don't hate blacks, some of my best friends are black!
Honestly a ton of people here do not know how these decisions made by the Pope work. There is no defense for moving around the pedophiles, for sure, but the way the pope handled homosexuality and condoms are just par for the course. It's his job to be consistent as possible regarding new phenomena, the way actual dogma changes is through Ecumenical councils (Vatican I, II, etc.). The pope's teachings are outdated because they're meant for the mid 20th century. The way these teachings come about almost like the legal system, they use a precedent already in catholic teachings, and then base their new theology to remain consistent. For sure catholic dogma needs reform, but a single Pope can't really do that without a council.
On February 11 2013 22:09 DarkLordOlli wrote: Paraphrasing: "condoms will send you to hell". That certainly helped AIDS, right?
that's a ridiculous paraphrase and you know it.
look, i agree with your sentiments on condom use, but no, afaik, commiting a sin will not directly send you to hell.
You know what will send you to hell? Trick question, nothing will send you to hell. What DID send some people to living hell though is him telling believers that they shouldn't use condoms when AIDS is a real threat and he's aware of it.
The irony of your made up quote is that this pope actually sad something about condoms and AIDS, only it was later revoked by other Vatican officials (yes, cardinals revoked their own infallible head of church):
Benedict said that condoms are not a moral solution to stopping AIDS. But he said in some cases, such as for male prostitutes, their use could represent a first step in assuming moral responsibility "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection."
Benedict drew the wrath of the United Nations, European governments and AIDS activists when, en route to Africa in 2009, he told reporters that the AIDS problem on the continent couldn't be resolved by distributing condoms. "On the contrary, it increases the problem," he said then.
He reiterated the church's position that abstinence and marital fidelity is the only sure way to prevent HIV.
See, an intelligent person would've said "or you could use condoms".
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?
It's not difficult to find, and I thought it to be common knowledge. I named it because it was the church status regarding this topic is classic.
BY RISK GROUP GAY, BISEXUAL, AND OTHER MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN (MSM): By risk group, gay, bisexual, and other MSM of all races remain the population most severely affected by HIV. MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. in 2009, as well as nearly half (49%) of people living with HIV in 2008 (the most recent year national prevalence data is available). CDC estimates that MSM account for just 2% of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, but accounted for more than 50% of all new HIV infections annually from 2006 to 2009. In 2010, MSM accounted for 61% of HIV diagnoses. In 2009, white MSM accounted for the largest number of annual new HIV infections of any group in the U.S. (11,400), followed closely by black MSM (10,800). Young, black MSM were the only risk group in the U.S. to experience statistically significant increases in new HIV infections from 2006–2009—from 4,400 new HIV infections in 2006 to 6,500 infections in 2009.
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?
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.
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?
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.
On February 11 2013 23:07 shadymmj wrote: undeniable truth is that HIV spreads far more easily through anal sex and that homosexuals are more likely to engage in anal sex, which is in itself also contrary to christian beliefs (among other religions...)
Where does the bible ever mention anal sex? And how would the orifice matter if you just used a condom in the first place?
On February 11 2013 21:27 aTnClouD wrote: Time for another clown to raise to power and bring a new wave of hatred on the world. I just wish they moved the cancer of vatican outside of my country. Let the poor embrace the middle age.
well techinally Vatican City is a seperate country from Italy.
sadly the Vatican is very powerful in Italy,economically and politically so the vatican being a different state only prevents external infuences to come in it,but does not keep it form influencing the rest of the world. there is definitely not enough separation between church and state when cardinals can go on national tv and say what the main objectives of the next italian Prime Minister should be. not to mention stupid and disgraceful laws on (or lack thereof) about abortions, artificial insemination and assisted suicide...
On February 11 2013 23:07 shadymmj wrote: undeniable truth is that HIV spreads far more easily through anal sex and that homosexuals are more likely to engage in anal sex, which is in itself also contrary to christian beliefs (among other religions...)
Where does the bible ever mention anal sex? And how would the orifice matter if you just used a condom in the first place?
Did you read the link I posted as a reply to you? No? It explained everything in layman's terms.
The anus/rectum is very susceptible to cuts and tears while conducting anal sex. This means there is a greater chance for infected body fluids to enter the blood stream.
Male homosexuals are the group most at-risk for HIV and other STIs. This is largely due to the high prevalence of the virus in semen as opposed to vaginal fluids, and the type of sexual activity associated with this group, e.g. anal sex.
On February 11 2013 23:07 shadymmj wrote: undeniable truth is that HIV spreads far more easily through anal sex and that homosexuals are more likely to engage in anal sex, which is in itself also contrary to christian beliefs (among other religions...)
Where does the bible ever mention anal sex? And how would the orifice matter if you just used a condom in the first place?
condoms tear, my dear friend. i know it's shocking news, but give it time to settle in.
and i think that's enough derailment...let's keep it to the pope as an individual
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.
The main vocation of catholicity is not the promotion of condom and libertinage. Churches promote fidelity and abstinence.
In case you didn't know, the VIH tests are free in sub-sahara Africa. Thus if Subsaharan Africans were acting like true Catholics, their AIDS rate would become far inferior to the ones of atheist groups among first world countries.
Being a bad Christian does not mean they deserve to die horrible early deaths. How can you be so lacking in compassion? They're dying and your only response is "well they should have been better Christians". Jesus.
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?
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.
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.
The main vocation of catholocity is not the promotion of condom and libertinage. Churches promote fidelity and abstinence.
In case you didn't know, the VIH tests are free in sub-sahara Africa. Thus if Subsaharan Africans were acting like true Catholics, the AIDS rate would become far inferior to the ones of atheist groups among first world countries.
It seems there are things in the human life no church can control? How many US politicians and preachers have called on abstinence and fidelity while not keeping it themself? Being realistic about society is a challenge for religion and you have to ask if society is moving too fast for the religions systems. It is not so much about a need for being consistent as an institution. Since we get new popes as often as others change underwear, it is about the elected popes being open about his opinions on some of the issues and making sense a bigger part of the popal work as opposed to traditional value promotion! 100 years ago abstinence was hot. Today it is not...
On February 11 2013 23:07 shadymmj wrote: undeniable truth is that HIV spreads far more easily through anal sex and that homosexuals are more likely to engage in anal sex, which is in itself also contrary to christian beliefs (among other religions...)
Where does the bible ever mention anal sex? And how would the orifice matter if you just used a condom in the first place?
condoms tear, my dear friend. i know it's shocking news, but give it time to settle in.
and i think that's enough derailment...let's keep it to the pope as an individual
Considering his stance on condoms was one of the defining features of this pope, I think it very relevant. Ratz was not much of an individual regardless, the was a representative of his ilk, he could have been practically anyone. They are concerned with their obscene wealth and power, and little else.
Being a bad Christian does not mean they deserve to die horrible early deaths. How can you be so lacking in compassion? They're dying and your only response is "well they should have been better Christians". Jesus.
One has to wonder who Jesus himself would react to this line of reasoning.
On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote: I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health.
Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions..
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?
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.
On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote: I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health.
Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions..
yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
I'm a Catholic, and I have no problem admitting that the Church is completely assbackwards on its teachings and canon law on sex. It all flows from the fundamental idea that sex is sacred and should not be had unless procreation is intended (ie -- no "fornicating"). This means no condoms or other birth control. In theory, this could be an acceptable position at least logically (however misguided) if the Church stuck to it. However, the Church doesn't. Instead, the Church creates and preaches two huge hypocritical loopholes. First, it teaches newly weds "natural family planning" techniques (timing sex to avoid peak fertility during the menstrual cycle), which is no different than using a condom in terms of intent. Second, and perhaps even worse, it then states it is okay to use a condom when one of the spouses has an STD (though I think it has to be a major one like AIDS). So really, is fornicating allowed or is it not?
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?
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.
On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote: I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health.
Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions..
yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
Having the ethical and moral conviction not to join, I'd say. Quite a few chose not to join Hitlerjugend. Apparently the wrath of the führer was more intimidating than that of god for young Ratz.
On February 11 2013 23:22 xDaunt wrote: Second, and perhaps even worse, it then states it is okay to use a condom when one of the spouses has an STD (though I think it has to be a major one like AIDS). So really, is fornicating allowed or is it not?
On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote: I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health.
Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions..
yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
A lot of the hate on him is really stupid (and I am no catholic)
He joined the hitler youth 1941, when he was 14 years old, and joining the hitler youth was mandatory and enforced by the police.
About condoms: Sex outside marriage is forbidden so somebody having sex outside marriage already does not adhere to catholic teachings, why should he then follow the catholic teachings when it comes to condoms. In marriage where one person has an STD condoms are allowed. Conclusion: By adhearing to catholic teachings STD's like AIDS will not spread. By adhering to the teachings of secular AIDS prevention campaigns (using condoms) STD's won't spread either. They only spread if you follow neither.
On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote: I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health.
Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions..
yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
True. But I think the biggest point I think LilSon is making is that the previous pope, was respected by people of all walks of life because of the way he carried himself and while adhering to catholic catechism was generally much more well spoken and less abrasive in his approach to dissenting opinion.
Though when I heard this this morning I was very surprised, I didn't even realize a pope could resign, I thought you were Pope until you passed away :/
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?
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.
you're rude and offensive beyond words
He was as well. I don't see a reason to hold back.
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?
It's not difficult to find, and I thought it to be common knowledge. I named it because it was the church status regarding this topic is classic.
BY RISK GROUP GAY, BISEXUAL, AND OTHER MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN (MSM): By risk group, gay, bisexual, and other MSM of all races remain the population most severely affected by HIV. MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. in 2009, as well as nearly half (49%) of people living with HIV in 2008 (the most recent year national prevalence data is available). CDC estimates that MSM account for just 2% of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, but accounted for more than 50% of all new HIV infections annually from 2006 to 2009. In 2010, MSM accounted for 61% of HIV diagnoses. In 2009, white MSM accounted for the largest number of annual new HIV infections of any group in the U.S. (11,400), followed closely by black MSM (10,800). Young, black MSM were the only risk group in the U.S. to experience statistically significant increases in new HIV infections from 2006–2009—from 4,400 new HIV infections in 2006 to 6,500 infections in 2009.
You've managed to miss the point by several AU, HIV in the USA is globally insignificant. It doesn't matter that anal sex is, to pick a number, ten times more likely to pass it on because heterosexuals are having more sex and HIV in sub Saharan Africa is an epidemic. There are orders of magnitude more straight infections than gay. I'm straight but I'd bareback with ten promiscuous American gays without asking about HIV one before I had sex with a black south African woman without a condom and you should too. Focusing on gays is like worrying about sharks when your boat sinks, sure they look scary but it's the water that'll kill you.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
you're rude and offensive beyond words
No he is not, and blast you for saying that he is. He is judging this book, these men, and their nation by the exact same standards you would judge anyone else as a morally responsible person, by how you treat others, how you live your life and the quality and integrity of your morals.
They are being held to the same standards as everyone else, and they are found wanting.
On February 11 2013 23:22 xDaunt wrote: I'm a Catholic, and I have no problem admitting that the Church is completely assbackwards on its teachings and canon law on sex. It all flows from the fundamental idea that sex is sacred and should not be had unless procreation is intended (ie -- no "fornicating"). This means no condoms or other birth control. In theory, this could be an acceptable position at least logically (however misguided) if the Church stuck to it. However, the Church doesn't. Instead, the Church creates and preaches two huge hypocritical loopholes. First, it teaches newly weds "natural family planning" techniques (timing sex to avoid peak fertility during the menstrual cycle), which is no different than using a condom in terms of intent. Second, and perhaps even worse, it then states it is okay to use a condom when one of the spouses has an STD (though I think it has to be a major one like AIDS). So really, is fornicating allowed or is it not?
"natural" family planning isn't outside the church's teachings though in a technical sense, since childbirth can still occur. Its one of those "God's Plan" kind of thought processes. As for STDs, yeah kinda backwards from a logical standpoint but in the end both these things are the "move slowly with the times" aspect of religion.
I'm a catholic myself, and I don't follow the catechism hardcore and am really fairly liberal. I don't know if I am still considered a "catholic" but I learned a lot of morality and lessons from my religion growing up and am happy I did. I really am glad I was never one of those hardcore religious fanatics though. Sometimes religion can be scary with people following too rigidly :s
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
His description of those societies is exaggerated. The point is: those people are certainly not capable of abstaining from sex. The Catholic Church tells them "don't use condoms, abstain from sex". The way the overwhelming majority of those people reason is: "while I can't abstain from sex, at least I don't use condoms." They think that while they commit a sin (adultery), it's not as bad as commiting two sins at the same time (adultery+use of contraceptions).
The Church is in a denial of reality and has very unrealistic expectations. What they preach (using contraceptions, especially in case of condoms, being bad) does more harm than good.
Abstinence is no solution. Neither is anti gay. Some people come in this thread and say it's very rude, hateful and disrispectful against catholics but then continue to use the same amount of hatred for gays. If you really believe in Christ, what about more compassion for 10% of gods children instead. Some people are gay some are not. You cannot change that. You don't chose if you fancy blond, ginger or brunette, it's just something you are born with. Guys who didn't like girls often ended up as priest and weren't allowed to have sex ever again. But since it goes so strongly against human nature it's not that strange some couldn't cope with it, and assaulted young boys. To me, stop denying gay priests exist and allow them as any other human being could be a solution for that. Together with allowing partners, no more abstinence, where is that in the bible. It's man made.
And to come back to subject, a more modern minded pope and church would be a real blessing into that direction. But it will probably take a lot more generations of popes, if ever.
On February 11 2013 23:22 xDaunt wrote: I'm a Catholic, and I have no problem admitting that the Church is completely assbackwards on its teachings and canon law on sex. It all flows from the fundamental idea that sex is sacred and should not be had unless procreation is intended (ie -- no "fornicating"). This means no condoms or other birth control. In theory, this could be an acceptable position at least logically (however misguided) if the Church stuck to it. However, the Church doesn't. Instead, the Church creates and preaches two huge hypocritical loopholes. First, it teaches newly weds "natural family planning" techniques (timing sex to avoid peak fertility during the menstrual cycle), which is no different than using a condom in terms of intent. Second, and perhaps even worse, it then states it is okay to use a condom when one of the spouses has an STD (though I think it has to be a major one like AIDS). So really, is fornicating allowed or is it not?
They also rely heavily on natural periods of infertility due to hormones such as prolonged breastfeeding. Oddly enough this is essentially indistinguishable from the pill but it's old so gets a pass. Still, glad to see you on my side on this one.
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?
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.
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.
You say this as if the accusation of blasphemy held any meaning. Heads up, believing wierd stuff does not mean you are granted immunity from ridicule or harsh language.
On February 11 2013 23:22 xDaunt wrote: I'm a Catholic, and I have no problem admitting that the Church is completely assbackwards on its teachings and canon law on sex. It all flows from the fundamental idea that sex is sacred and should not be had unless procreation is intended (ie -- no "fornicating"). This means no condoms or other birth control. In theory, this could be an acceptable position at least logically (however misguided) if the Church stuck to it. However, the Church doesn't. Instead, the Church creates and preaches two huge hypocritical loopholes. First, it teaches newly weds "natural family planning" techniques (timing sex to avoid peak fertility during the menstrual cycle), which is no different than using a condom in terms of intent. Second, and perhaps even worse, it then states it is okay to use a condom when one of the spouses has an STD (though I think it has to be a major one like AIDS). So really, is fornicating allowed or is it not?
They also rely heavily on natural periods of infertility due to hormones such as prolonged breastfeeding. Oddly enough this is essentially indistinguishable from the pill but it's old so gets a pass. Still, glad to see you on my side on this one.
Yeah a lot of people are pretty critical of the Catechism, and honestly, some of the rules are mad out dated I hope the church and religion in general can move with the times and people of all religions can some day distinguish blind following and specific rules from basic tenets of being a good person and happening to learn it through their chosen religion.
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?
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 teaching them wtf AIDS is so they'll understand why it might not be a good idea for them to have sex.
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?
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.
His description of those societies is exaggerated. The point is: those people are certainly not capable of abstaining from sex. The Catholic Church tells them "don't use condoms, abstain from sex". The way the overwhelming majority of those people reason is: "while I can't abstain from sex, at least I don't use condoms." They think that while they commit a sin (adultery), it's not as bad as commiting two sins at the same time (adultery+use of contraceptions).
I'm still waiting for an explanation why it's the pope/church's fault that these people are applying flawed logic. And I have a hard to believing that while someone is committing adultery, they're thinking to themselves "I'm not using a condom, look at me, I'm a good catholic!"
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.
The main vocation of catholicity is not the promotion of condom and libertinage. Churches promote fidelity and abstinence.
In case you didn't know, the VIH tests are free in sub-sahara Africa. Thus if Subsaharan Africans were acting like true Catholics, their AIDS rate would become far inferior to the ones of atheist groups among first world countries.
Being a bad Christian does not mean they deserve to die horrible early deaths. How can you be so lacking in compassion? They're dying and your only response is "well they should have been better Christians". Jesus.
I just demonstrated that the Catholics message is not the cause of AIDS in Subsaharan Africa. People claiming otherwise are uninformed or dishonest. Besides, the pope never forbade condomns, he never put a catholic seal of approval on it which is quite different.
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.
The main vocation of catholocity is not the promotion of condom and libertinage. Churches promote fidelity and abstinence.
In case you didn't know, the VIH tests are free in sub-sahara Africa. Thus if Subsaharan Africans were acting like true Catholics, the AIDS rate would become far inferior to the ones of atheist groups among first world countries.
It seems there are things in the human life no church can control? How many US politicians and preachers have called on abstinence and fidelity while not keeping it themself? Being realistic about society is a challenge for religion and you have to ask if society is moving too fast for the religions systems. It is not so much about a need for being consistent as an institution. Since we get new popes as often as others change underwear, it is about the elected popes being open about his opinions on some of the issues and making sense a bigger part of the popal work as opposed to traditional value promotion! 100 years ago abstinence was hot. Today it is not...
First of, there's a difference between ideals and realities. You can respect and admire an ideal without sharing it or respecting it.
Secondly, Catholicism is a multi-millenial doctrine. It has proved itelf. I doubt our decadent and dying western culture will last as long. Not only that, but I doubt people would find any interest in a religion which basically reiterates the main opinions of the media and don't take any courageous stances.
This is actually not too much of a suprise, except for perhaps the timing. He's said repeatedly in his recent writings and interviews that he would consider abdicating if he didn't have the physical stamina to carry out the tasks of Pope, as well as noting the reality that people live much longer than before. And abdication is such a better word to use on this occasion than "resignation". Whom would he resign to, lol?
Anyways, he was an extraodinary Pope, and I hope the conclave elects a new Pope who is able to serve the church as well as Benedict XVI and John Paul II did. God bless him and the new Pope!
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?
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.
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.
Wow, JP 2 would be disappoint. That guy was pope to the end. I remember seeing him in Toronto, and back then the guy could barely hold his head up. He was still going about his papal business like a boss for another few years after that.
I remember when they chose Benedict XVI there was talk that the guy was just a placeholder or temporary (shorter term than the last) pope, but I figured it was because he was so old when he was appointed to the position... I didn't think it was because he was the biggest wimp in 600 years. Do it 'til death or turn the job down... shit.
On February 11 2013 23:22 xDaunt wrote: Second, and perhaps even worse, it then states it is okay to use a condom when one of the spouses has an STD (though I think it has to be a major one like AIDS). So really, is fornicating allowed or is it not?
Not true at all. Do you have a source?
This is what they taught in my marriage prep class.
Serious question: Why doesn't he just pray his sickness away? I mean if God is going to grant anyone good health, he should probably give it to the guy who is supposed to be his earthly proxy.
On February 11 2013 23:22 xDaunt wrote: Second, and perhaps even worse, it then states it is okay to use a condom when one of the spouses has an STD (though I think it has to be a major one like AIDS). So really, is fornicating allowed or is it not?
Not true at all. Do you have a source?
This is what they taught in my marriage prep class.
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.
This thread is about a religious leader stepping down from his position and not a thread about the "power of god" and prayer or validity of religion etc etc.
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?
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.
I suspect most people in this thread to not have read any of the text/speech made by the Pope ither that the tidbits that appeared in the press every once in a while. As a christian, I've read several of his speeches, and most of them have been really inspiring. He was way more progressist and open minded that people gives him credit for.
I was not excited when he was elected, but I must admit that he was a really good pope.
On February 11 2013 22:53 SpeaKEaSY wrote: [quote]
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?
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.
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.
Well, the catholic church has done good and bad. Throughout most of it's history the catholic church was regarded positively. It is just that todays popular culture tends to focus more on the darker sides of the catholic churches history than on the more positive ones.
On February 11 2013 23:22 xDaunt wrote: Second, and perhaps even worse, it then states it is okay to use a condom when one of the spouses has an STD (though I think it has to be a major one like AIDS). So really, is fornicating allowed or is it not?
Not true at all. Do you have a source?
This is what they taught in my marriage prep class.
A marriage what now?
If you want to get married within the Church, you're required to attend a marriage preparation course. The one that I went to was absolutely horrific, taught by a French couple (Christian and Christine) who were the wrong kind of Catholics in my opinion. They were the type of Catholic that were previously a-religious until Christine had an abortion, at which point they found God, dropped everything in their lives, and became missionaries. They taught the Bible with a kind of literalism that I previously did not think existed within the Catholic Church anymore.
Why's this entire thread about sex? Obviously because the Church has a compulsive obsession with people having sex. And their views are from the middle ages, That's exactly why, no one should pay any attention to this archaic institution. Ignore the Church, it has no place in today's modern society.
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.
The main vocation of catholicity is not the promotion of condom and libertinage. Churches promote fidelity and abstinence.
In case you didn't know, the VIH tests are free in sub-sahara Africa. Thus if Subsaharan Africans were acting like true Catholics, their AIDS rate would become far inferior to the ones of atheist groups among first world countries.
Being a bad Christian does not mean they deserve to die horrible early deaths. How can you be so lacking in compassion? They're dying and your only response is "well they should have been better Christians". Jesus.
I just demonstrated that the Catholics message is not the cause of AIDS in Subsaharan Africa. People claiming otherwise are uninformed or dishonest. Besides, the pope never forbade condomns, he never put a catholic seal of approval on it which is quite different.
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.
The main vocation of catholocity is not the promotion of condom and libertinage. Churches promote fidelity and abstinence.
In case you didn't know, the VIH tests are free in sub-sahara Africa. Thus if Subsaharan Africans were acting like true Catholics, the AIDS rate would become far inferior to the ones of atheist groups among first world countries.
It seems there are things in the human life no church can control? How many US politicians and preachers have called on abstinence and fidelity while not keeping it themself? Being realistic about society is a challenge for religion and you have to ask if society is moving too fast for the religions systems. It is not so much about a need for being consistent as an institution. Since we get new popes as often as others change underwear, it is about the elected popes being open about his opinions on some of the issues and making sense a bigger part of the popal work as opposed to traditional value promotion! 100 years ago abstinence was hot. Today it is not...
First of, there's a difference between ideals and realities. You can respect and admire an ideal without sharing it or respecting it.
Secondly, Catholicism is a multi-millenial doctrine. It has proved itelf. I doubt our decadent and dying western culture will last as long. Not only that, but I doubt people would find any interest in a religion which basically reiterates the main opinions of the media and don't take any courageous stances.
There is absolutely nothing even approaching courageous in promoting a dead culture that will never come back. I would even go as far as calling it cowardish! Thinking new is where the big issues are solved, not in objecting to the reality by repeating the same disproven fallacies.
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.
The main vocation of catholicity is not the promotion of condom and libertinage. Churches promote fidelity and abstinence.
In case you didn't know, the VIH tests are free in sub-sahara Africa. Thus if Subsaharan Africans were acting like true Catholics, their AIDS rate would become far inferior to the ones of atheist groups among first world countries.
Being a bad Christian does not mean they deserve to die horrible early deaths. How can you be so lacking in compassion? They're dying and your only response is "well they should have been better Christians". Jesus.
I just demonstrated that the Catholics message is not the cause of AIDS in Subsaharan Africa. People claiming otherwise are uninformed or dishonest. Besides, the pope never forbade condomns, he never put a catholic seal of approval on it which is quite different.
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.
The main vocation of catholocity is not the promotion of condom and libertinage. Churches promote fidelity and abstinence.
In case you didn't know, the VIH tests are free in sub-sahara Africa. Thus if Subsaharan Africans were acting like true Catholics, the AIDS rate would become far inferior to the ones of atheist groups among first world countries.
It seems there are things in the human life no church can control? How many US politicians and preachers have called on abstinence and fidelity while not keeping it themself? Being realistic about society is a challenge for religion and you have to ask if society is moving too fast for the religions systems. It is not so much about a need for being consistent as an institution. Since we get new popes as often as others change underwear, it is about the elected popes being open about his opinions on some of the issues and making sense a bigger part of the popal work as opposed to traditional value promotion! 100 years ago abstinence was hot. Today it is not...
First of, there's a difference between ideals and realities. You can respect and admire an ideal without sharing it or respecting it.
Secondly, Catholicism is a multi-millenial doctrine. It has proved itelf. I doubt our decadent and dying western culture will last as long. Not only that, but I doubt people would find any interest in a religion which basically reiterates the main opinions of the media and don't take any courageous stances.
I would also argue that Catholicism has proved itself during all this time, but I'd make the reverse case of it. And holding on to old, outdated views that discriminates are not courageous but cowardly. Being even more compassionate and caring, that is courage. There is a reason almost no one likes to have the old testament cited for example.
I'm really surprised that Pope Benedict XVI stepped down from his position, considering the job is generally until the person dies. The last time a pope resigned was nearly 600 years ago. His "health issues" shouldn't really be a reason for him to quit.
I looked up the qualifications to become Pope, turns out I'm eligible and if I were to be elected this would be one badass thing to live up to!
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.
On February 11 2013 23:41 ZeromuS wrote: 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.
Yes, to the people who hold these beliefs. Not the beliefs themselves, however.
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.
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.
Well, the catholic church has done good and bad. Throughout most of it's history the catholic church was regarded positively. It is just that todays popular culture tends to focus more on the darker sides of the catholic churches history than on the more positive ones.
Completely true and I won't disagree with that. However the "bad" things were so fucking incredibly bad that people defending the church as a whole make me sick. Burning "witches", crusades, etc. Those are part of the "2000 year old tradition" he's talking about and fuck yes I'm gonna criticize that.
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?
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.
His description of those societies is exaggerated. The point is: those people are certainly not capable of abstaining from sex. The Catholic Church tells them "don't use condoms, abstain from sex". The way the overwhelming majority of those people reason is: "while I can't abstain from sex, at least I don't use condoms." They think that while they commit a sin (adultery), it's not as bad as commiting two sins at the same time (adultery+use of contraceptions).
I'm still waiting for an explanation why it's the pope/church's fault that these people are applying flawed logic. And I have a hard to believing that while someone is committing adultery, they're thinking to themselves "I'm not using a condom, look at me, I'm a good catholic!"
Because they are being discouraged from using them by the Church? Fighting each sin is a different battle. It's easier to win those small battles (e.g. not using condoms) than those big ones (e.g. abstaining from sex before you get married). You're talking as if religious people who are having extramarital sex don't feel guilty about it. It's not a matter of calculating, but rather emotions. They feel bad about sinning. I find it hard to imagine that someone who commits one type of sin somehow will think to himself that it's okay for him to commit all sorts of different sins he considers "lesser".
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?
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.
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.
People who take blasphemy seriously have imo a problem. I think they're shaken in their "oh-so-solid-because-it-s-2000-year-old" conviction and they don't like that.
Well guess what, it's not because it's old that's it's necessarily good... And secondly, if someone say something "blasphemic", it means they probably don't believe in the same things you believe in. Which is the point of "believing". You can't convince on this topic. And especially not by a "It's 2000 years old so it's true" argument. Thus why not considering blasphemy as "he doesn't believe, so it's fine".
On February 11 2013 23:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'm really surprised that Pope Benedict XVI stepped down from his position, considering the job is generally until the person dies. The last time a pope resigned was nearly 600 years ago. His "health issues" shouldn't really be a reason for him to quit.
I looked up the qualifications to become Pope, turns out I'm eligible and if I were to be elected this would be one badass thing to live up to!
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.
Well, with the amount of Atheists and non-Catholics here, it should be a pretty slim competition. Then again, this is a pretty heavily European community. I wouldn't even be surprised if Catholics were a majority here, lol.
On February 11 2013 22:53 SpeaKEaSY wrote: [quote]
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?
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.
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.
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.
The main vocation of catholicity is not the promotion of condom and libertinage. Churches promote fidelity and abstinence.
In case you didn't know, the VIH tests are free in sub-sahara Africa. Thus if Subsaharan Africans were acting like true Catholics, their AIDS rate would become far inferior to the ones of atheist groups among first world countries.
Being a bad Christian does not mean they deserve to die horrible early deaths. How can you be so lacking in compassion? They're dying and your only response is "well they should have been better Christians". Jesus.
I just demonstrated that the Catholics message is not the cause of AIDS in Subsaharan Africa. People claiming otherwise are uninformed or dishonest. Besides, the pope never forbade condomns, he never put a catholic seal of approval on it which is quite different.
On February 11 2013 23:19 radiatoren wrote:
On February 11 2013 23:07 SiroKO wrote:
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.
The main vocation of catholocity is not the promotion of condom and libertinage. Churches promote fidelity and abstinence.
In case you didn't know, the VIH tests are free in sub-sahara Africa. Thus if Subsaharan Africans were acting like true Catholics, the AIDS rate would become far inferior to the ones of atheist groups among first world countries.
It seems there are things in the human life no church can control? How many US politicians and preachers have called on abstinence and fidelity while not keeping it themself? Being realistic about society is a challenge for religion and you have to ask if society is moving too fast for the religions systems. It is not so much about a need for being consistent as an institution. Since we get new popes as often as others change underwear, it is about the elected popes being open about his opinions on some of the issues and making sense a bigger part of the popal work as opposed to traditional value promotion! 100 years ago abstinence was hot. Today it is not...
First of, there's a difference between ideals and realities. You can respect and admire an ideal without sharing it or respecting it.
Secondly, Catholicism is a multi-millenial doctrine. It has proved itelf. I doubt our decadent and dying western culture will last as long. Not only that, but I doubt people would find any interest in a religion which basically reiterates the main opinions of the media and don't take any courageous stances.
I would also argue that Catholicism has proved itself during all this time, but I'd make the reverse case of it. And holding on to old, outdated views that discriminates are not courageous but cowardly. Being even more compassionate and caring, that is courage. There is a reason almost no one likes to have the old testament cited for example.
This is a religion, not a science. If the Truth, as reveal by the Bible is that condoms are evil and homosexuals should be shunned, then it's not courage to update these views with modernity, it's blasphemy.
The single greatest and simplest act of good doable in the world today would be for the Vatican to declare that knowingly exposing another person to HIV is morally equal to murder while using a condom is morally equal to masturbation. Then people can choose their poison.
On February 11 2013 23:22 xDaunt wrote: Second, and perhaps even worse, it then states it is okay to use a condom when one of the spouses has an STD (though I think it has to be a major one like AIDS). So really, is fornicating allowed or is it not?
Not true at all. Do you have a source?
This is what they taught in my marriage prep class.
lol, who taught you prep class, laypeople?
I'm pretty sure that goes against what the church teaches. But it seems pretty common in America for people to push their own agenda despite it going against church teaching. This is the official church teaching on that matter.
On February 11 2013 23:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'm really surprised that Pope Benedict XVI stepped down from his position, considering the job is generally until the person dies. The last time a pope resigned was nearly 600 years ago. His "health issues" shouldn't really be a reason for him to quit.
I looked up the qualifications to become Pope, turns out I'm eligible and if I were to be elected this would be one badass thing to live up to!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Why?
Because there is no reason not to. Even if you personally are not religious there is absolutely no reason to be completely disrespectful towards the way of life of the vast majority of the world's population. It doesn't matter what religion it is, it doesn't matter that it differs from your own personal beliefs or lack thereof, being that calloused and disrespectful towards your fellow man's way of life makes you look even more silly and childish than you feel their beliefs are.
I'm getting the distinct impression that a lot of people in this thread are very young or just have very little life experience and also haven't read any of Benedict's thoughts on some of the matters they're criticizing him for. You want a pope that's more open to condoms and gay rights? So do I, and he was a step in the right direction, just not enough of one. Whether people want to believe it or not, the Catholic church knows this, and a lot of Catholic (and Protestant) churches are changing their stance on homosexuality. I'm not Catholic, I think the Catholic church has handled a lot of things wrong, but I also know that the Catholic church pumps crazy amounts of money into good causes and helps people without getting anything back from it, and I'd be a total jackass if I condemned them as a whole or ridiculed their beliefs because they, humans, made mistakes.
Good for Benedict for deciding to step down if he feels he isn't healthy enough for the position anymore. That's the responsible thing to do, and I hope they select a new Pope that's another step in the right direction.
On February 11 2013 23:22 xDaunt wrote: Second, and perhaps even worse, it then states it is okay to use a condom when one of the spouses has an STD (though I think it has to be a major one like AIDS). So really, is fornicating allowed or is it not?
Not true at all. Do you have a source?
This is what they taught in my marriage prep class.
A marriage what now?
If you want to get married within the Church, you're required to attend a marriage preparation course. The one that I went to was absolutely horrific, taught by a French couple (Christian and Christine) who were the wrong kind of Catholics in my opinion. They were the type of Catholic that were previously a-religious until Christine had an abortion, at which point they found God, dropped everything in their lives, and became missionaries. They taught the Bible with a kind of literalism that I previously did not think existed within the Catholic Church anymore.
Is this still always the case in the USA? I think it used to be like this in the Netherlands in the good old days but not for some time now (or perhaps I´m just used to rather liberal churches and it still happens in the more conservative ones). I have several Catholic friends who married last year but none of them had a marriage preparation course. Sure they had a talk with the pastor about why they wanted to marry for the church but that was it.
On February 11 2013 23:22 xDaunt wrote: Second, and perhaps even worse, it then states it is okay to use a condom when one of the spouses has an STD (though I think it has to be a major one like AIDS). So really, is fornicating allowed or is it not?
Not true at all. Do you have a source?
This is what they taught in my marriage prep class.
lol, who taught you prep class, laypeople?
I'm pretty sure that goes against what the church teaches. But it seems pretty common in America for people to push their own agenda despite it going against church teaching. This is the official church teaching on that matter.
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.
I know of older traditions that many people back then followed with their heart and soul, that involved cannibalism and human sacrifices. These traditions are gone now but existed longer than Christianity. Would saying something about those traditions be blasphemic too?
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.
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.
Yes, I'm gonna respect people who are Christian. No, I'm not gonna respect people who defend the church as a whole.
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.
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.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.... Let's not go crazy here. What separates the Christian faith from the Jewish one is the belief in Christ as the son of God. This is not based upon the words of God at all. It's based upon the words of the authors of the New Testament - supposedly Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, and finally Saul (Paul). None of these men was God, and it is said that neither Matthew, Mark, Luke or John actually WROTE the books that are named after them.
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...we 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.
You're the one that acts blind and arrogant in here. If a person is a good person.. hahahaha
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.
I'm glad he stepped down. Maybe there can be a Pope who has more modern thinking. I'm a person who very much feels like holding on to the past too tightly can hurt the organization and it has...
I remember i saw this story on the news how the Pope called "The Sisters" (nuns who dressed normally, owned their own hospitals and did AIDS work in Africa etc) heretics just because he was threatened of them. Just because you don't dress as a traditional nun, work outside the convent, and don't care if you are helping gay or straight people you should be called out as heathens by the church? You got to the kidding me. Little things like that pissed me off greatly. I respect the Catholic traditions but they really need to move on and develop some tolerance. This is a time where churches should be promoting peace, love and understanding not the complete opposite.
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...we 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.
You're the one that acts blind, arrogant and utterly retarded in here. If a person is a good person.. hahahaha
No he's not. He's pointing out that people should not get respect for believing in things based not on evidence, but rather on faith. This is widely accepted as reasonable for all types of beliefs, and it should apply to religious belief too.
On February 11 2013 23:22 xDaunt wrote: Second, and perhaps even worse, it then states it is okay to use a condom when one of the spouses has an STD (though I think it has to be a major one like AIDS). So really, is fornicating allowed or is it not?
Not true at all. Do you have a source?
This is what they taught in my marriage prep class.
lol, who taught you prep class, laypeople?
I'm pretty sure that goes against what the church teaches. But it seems pretty common in America for people to push their own agenda despite it going against church teaching. This is the official church teaching on that matter.
Like a lot of news headlines that are written when then the pope so much as farts, the headline was written to sell newspaper rather than to reflect the truth.
How can the writer come up with that headline when the guy clearly states "It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution" and “it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection” ?
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?
Not to their religions, but they are humans too you know. I just meant respect goes both ways. Nothing more.
I respect everyone as a person :/ I can disagree with beliefs but that amounts to a semantic disagreement regarding how to say the word "tomato"
In the end people are people and as long as you arent chasing me with a knife I could care less what you believe in. I just don't want to see the thread turn into religion flame wars personally.
No one hates Germany for what Hitler did in the 40s so why do people some people so vehemently hate everything religion stands for because of wars that were started ages and ages ago for example.
You can have a lack of respect for a person who does and says horrible things, not for a lack of respect for a person because they believe X instead of Y. I mean sure the pope has some backwards beliefs regarding contraception for example, but he hasn't gone out of his way to force his beliefs on those who don't follow his religion. And even then at most he can chastise people from his religion for it.
I see people arguing about blasphemy and other such useless things. When really its as simple as the pope is resigning, people can post their thoughts, but no need for "why doesn't he just pray to god to heal him huehuehue" posts .
IMO.
On February 11 2013 23:52 KwarK wrote: The single greatest and simplest act of good doable in the world today would be for the Vatican to declare that knowingly exposing another person to HIV is morally equal to murder while using a condom is morally equal to masturbation. Then people can choose their poison.
Yeah I agree. Personally I think that would be a good position for the Vatican to take but who knows what the new pope will do some are much more progressive than others. JPII vs BenedictXVI for example.
On February 11 2013 23:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'm really surprised that Pope Benedict XVI stepped down from his position, considering the job is generally until the person dies. The last time a pope resigned was nearly 600 years ago. His "health issues" shouldn't really be a reason for him to quit.
On February 11 2013 23:30 DevilofDeath wrote:
On February 11 2013 20:34 spelhus wrote: Nice finally the prophecy will be fulfilled! I'm so excited ^^
I looked up the qualifications to become Pope, turns out I'm eligible and if I were to be elected this would be one badass thing to live up to!
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.
Well, with the amount of Atheists and non-Catholics here, it should be a pretty slim competition. Then again, this is a pretty heavily European community. I wouldn't even be surprised if Catholics were a majority here, lol.
You actually bring up an interesting point about us being European heavy and having a large population of atheists. This is the internet, so it's kind of misleading. If I went by TL I would, wrongfully, assume that Sweden was filled to overflowing with people that were intolerant of other people's ways of living, but Sweden is actually one of the more chill places regarding people's beliefs. Being the internet, and on a fansite for games marketed towards teenagers, it tends to skew things.
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.
The main vocation of catholicity is not the promotion of condom and libertinage. Churches promote fidelity and abstinence.
In case you didn't know, the VIH tests are free in sub-sahara Africa. Thus if Subsaharan Africans were acting like true Catholics, their AIDS rate would become far inferior to the ones of atheist groups among first world countries.
Being a bad Christian does not mean they deserve to die horrible early deaths. How can you be so lacking in compassion? They're dying and your only response is "well they should have been better Christians". Jesus.
I just demonstrated that the Catholics message is not the cause of AIDS in Subsaharan Africa. People claiming otherwise are uninformed or dishonest. Besides, the pope never forbade condomns, he never put a catholic seal of approval on it which is quite different.
On February 11 2013 23:19 radiatoren wrote:
On February 11 2013 23:07 SiroKO wrote:
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.
The main vocation of catholocity is not the promotion of condom and libertinage. Churches promote fidelity and abstinence.
In case you didn't know, the VIH tests are free in sub-sahara Africa. Thus if Subsaharan Africans were acting like true Catholics, the AIDS rate would become far inferior to the ones of atheist groups among first world countries.
It seems there are things in the human life no church can control? How many US politicians and preachers have called on abstinence and fidelity while not keeping it themself? Being realistic about society is a challenge for religion and you have to ask if society is moving too fast for the religions systems. It is not so much about a need for being consistent as an institution. Since we get new popes as often as others change underwear, it is about the elected popes being open about his opinions on some of the issues and making sense a bigger part of the popal work as opposed to traditional value promotion! 100 years ago abstinence was hot. Today it is not...
First of, there's a difference between ideals and realities. You can respect and admire an ideal without sharing it or respecting it.
Secondly, Catholicism is a multi-millenial doctrine. It has proved itelf. I doubt our decadent and dying western culture will last as long. Not only that, but I doubt people would find any interest in a religion which basically reiterates the main opinions of the media and don't take any courageous stances.
I would also argue that Catholicism has proved itself during all this time, but I'd make the reverse case of it. And holding on to old, outdated views that discriminates are not courageous but cowardly. Being even more compassionate and caring, that is courage. There is a reason almost no one likes to have the old testament cited for example.
This is a religion, not a science. If the Truth, as reveal by the Bible is that condoms are evil and homosexuals should be shunned, then it's not courage to update these views with modernity, it's blasphemy.
Well, I would beg to differ. If anything Jesus was an anarchist putting the jewish traditions up for his test and failing several of them as impractical or immoral. I would argue that the bible is sufficiently vague on most issues as to push for an infinite number of interpretations. Calling anything as "revealed" in the bible is an interpretation in itself. Just as taking a historic look at Council of Jamnia and the later versions, the canonizations of the scriptures included, and especially those excluded, I would argue that the canonization process is rather close to blasphemy!
On February 11 2013 23:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'm really surprised that Pope Benedict XVI stepped down from his position, considering the job is generally until the person dies. The last time a pope resigned was nearly 600 years ago. His "health issues" shouldn't really be a reason for him to quit.
The bolded part is really quite childish and presumptuous. Abdication is a pretty couragous and humble act. The Pope made a conscientious and wise decision.
From what I said earlier:
On February 11 2013 23:37 TerribleTrioJon wrote: This is actually not too much of a suprise, except for perhaps the timing. He's said repeatedly in his recent writings and interviews that he would consider abdicating if he didn't have the physical stamina to carry out the tasks of Pope, as well as noting the reality that people live much longer than before.
It's amusing that the thread appears to have been given free reign to go off-course.
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.
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'm a big fan of condoms myself, but yeah, it doesn't solve HIV at its core. single partner fidelity, HIV screening for high risk individuals, social responsibility...i think these things are in principle more effective
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?
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.
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.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.... Let's not go crazy here. What separates the Christian faith from the Jewish one is the belief in Christ as the son of God. This is not based upon the words of God at all. It's based upon the words of the authors of the New Testament - supposedly Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, and finally Saul (Paul). None of these men was God, and it is said that neither Matthew, Mark, Luke or John actually WROTE the books that are named after them.
On February 11 2013 22:53 SpeaKEaSY wrote: [quote]
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?
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.
On February 12 2013 00:06 shadymmj wrote: i'm a big fan of condoms myself, but yeah, it doesn't solve HIV at its core. single partner fidelity, HIV screening for high risk individuals, social responsibility...i think these things are in principle more effective
Yes that is completely true but it's ignoring the fact that there's tons of people in the world who won't even understand why they should follow those rules. A lot of people who have AIDS and have sex have no idea what AIDS is because they're lacking the education. To say that it is "morally wrong" for them to use condoms and they should practice abstinence instead is blatantly ignorant. It would be morally wrong if they were aware of the consequences.
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.
In a perfect world, Yes but the world isn't perfect. People are idiots and people make mistakes and shit happens :/.
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.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.... Let's not go crazy here. What separates the Christian faith from the Jewish one is the belief in Christ as the son of God. This is not based upon the words of God at all. It's based upon the words of the authors of the New Testament - supposedly Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, and finally Saul (Paul). None of these men was God, and it is said that neither Matthew, Mark, Luke or John actually WROTE the books that are named after them.
Your point...?
"Word of God" is a very misleading way to describe something that isn't.
EDIT: Simply answering something asked of me before the posting of the mod note. With respect to the mod note, and having said what I needed to say regarding Benedict XVI, this will be my last post in this thread.
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.
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.
Yes, I'm gonna respect people who are Christian. No, I'm not gonna respect people who defend the church as a whole.
While the theory that the bible was changed is often proposed by conspiration theorists (not pretending you are one, maybe you just heard the wrong people) there are very old bibles available. There are numerous fragments from the second century on (dated by the C-14 method, a scientific standard method to determine ages) and whole bibles from the 4th century. There are only minor disagreements between versions.
Edit: Started writing this post before the mod note appeared and therefore didn't see it until I posted the comment.
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.
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!
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 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 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 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 23:41 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.
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 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?
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.
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?
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?
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).
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.
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.
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?
WTF Like, seriously, wtf. How can you still ignore what I'm saying. You're arguing against things I'm not saying and ignoring things I am saying. I'll say it again, as clearly as possible.
AIDS is most problematic if people are not educated enough to understand it. The solution to that is to give them fucking condoms WHILE educating them and then possibly talk about abstinence. That solves the problem at hand and gives a solution to solve the problem over a long time. If you just say "we're gonna educate them and tell them that they shouldn't have sex" and meanwhile they've had sex X times already, spreading the disease while you could've just given them condoms AND educated them so they wouldn't have to rely on condoms later, then you're a fucking idiot. And that's exactly what I considered him.
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?
Google search turned this up (http://holymotherchurch.blogspot.ca):
"The longest period of time during which the Catholic Church did not have a pope was from November 1268 to September 1, 1271, almost 3 years. This period is known as the interregnum (between reigns). The reasons were mostly political. It would have taken even longer, but the cardinals were locked in the Palazzo dei Papi di Viterbo to vote. They were given only bread and water and even the roof was removed making conditions very uncomfortable.
Eventually, Pope Gregory X was elected."
EDIT: I suppose the theoretical maximum would be infinite.
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: 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.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
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?
Last time he moved to a cloister (I hope this is the correct english word) for the rest of his live.
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?
Last time he moved to a cloister (I hope this is the correct english word) for the rest of his live.
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.
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?
Google search turned this up (http://holymotherchurch.blogspot.ca):
"The longest period of time during which the Catholic Church did not have a pope was from November 1268 to September 1, 1271, almost 3 years. This period is known as the interregnum (between reigns). The reasons were mostly political. It would have taken even longer, but the cardinals were locked in the Palazzo dei Papi di Viterbo to vote. They were given only bread and water and even the roof was removed making conditions very uncomfortable.
Eventually, Pope Gregory X was elected."
EDIT: I suppose the theoretical maximum would be infinite.
Thanks for answering that. So quite a long time possibly.
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?
There is no maximum time in which a pope has to be chosen. The longest period for an election using the current process in which the cardinals choose a new pope is to this date 3 years (1268-1271). Since that time the cardinals are locked up untill a new pope is chosen.
As far as I know every unmarried catholic man can declare he wants to become pope and then the cardinals will vote. The people who don´t have a chance of winning step out of the race along the way and lend their support to somebody else. After each vote the paper ballots will be burned and depending on if a quorum for a new pope has been met the smoke will be grey or white. White meaning a new pope has been chosen and the doors can be unlocked.
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"?
Cardinals don't "race" or campaign for the papal election. The Conclave is the election process held by the college of cardinals (which is a rather small body). They hear two "sermons" or state of the union addresses about where the Catholic church presently is in its mission, influence, and it's general state, and to suggest the qualities necessary for the new Pope. Then they vote in the closed Sistine Chapel by ballot, (usually narrowing down the choices to two or three and disuading the Cardinals from courtesy votes), and annouce that a new Pope has been chosen by burning the ballots and making a white smoke signal for the people waiting in Vatican Square for the annoucement/presentation.
All you people thinking there's going to be a liberal pope are crazy.
The next pope's going to be a conservative from Africa/Asia/South America, as those are Catholicism's growth areas. Electing a liberal European/North American pope will alienate the demographics that are the only hope for the church staying as big as it is.
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: 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.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
female priests won't happen because it's at the bottom of the Church priorities atm. The main problem is the conflict between keeping the institution as much united as possible, which means talking to people who fundamentally disagree with Vatican II, and the modernisation work both toward other religions (Ratzinger did a good job on that matter) and considering the gap between the Church views and society views, especially on sexuality and marriage. You add the fact that the institution is governed by people coming from an area where the Curch is drastically weakened and you've a slight insight of the clusterfuck that's going on, ignoring all the inner scandals.
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: 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.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
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?
Last time he moved to a cloister (I hope this is the correct english word) for the rest of his live.
I just read it was declared that he would retire to Castle Gandolfo (the summerpalace of the church so to speak. It lays in the hills outside of rome where it´s cooler in the summer and that´s also where the pope spends a lot of his time during these hot months) although it wasn´t really clear to me if this would only be for the time till a new pope was chosen or untill he died.
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.
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?
WTF Like, seriously, wtf. How can you still ignore what I'm saying. You're arguing against things I'm not saying and ignoring things I am saying. I'll say it again, as clearly as possible.
AIDS is most problematic if people are not educated enough to understand it. The solution to that is to give them fucking condoms WHILE educating them and then possibly talk about abstinence. That solves the problem at hand and gives a solution to solve the problem over a long time. If you just say "we're gonna educate them and tell them that they shouldn't have sex" and meanwhile they've had sex X times already, spreading the disease while you could've just given them condoms AND educated them so they wouldn't have to rely on condoms later, then you're a fucking idiot. And that's exactly what I considered him.
User was warned for this post
Because, as I've said, if a particular activity is causing the spread of HIV, then it would be good advice to halt that particular activity, not give people a false sense of security. You say that the problem is that people are having sex "X times already," then you merely have to multiply X by failure rate of condoms to figure out how many people you are exposing to HIV with your "solution." For example, with a 1% failure rate, an HIV infected person having sex once a day that listened to your "solution" would expose their partner to infection about 3 times a year. Multiply that by the amount of sexually active people, and you can figure out theoretically how many people are risking exposure to HIV due to your "solution." Absolutely irresponsible.
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: 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.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: 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.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
Well I think the new pope could of course do so if he wants. Now the question is, why would the conclave elect somebody who is likely to plan another council?
On February 11 2013 20:59 Mafe wrote: My guess is he's got a diagnosis of something like Alzeheimer's disease. And he wants a conscious leader for the catholic church.
Yeah I'd say this makes the most sense. The chances that he grew a concience are lower than the chances of the next Pope being in favour of gay marriage.
Why you are even contemplating he doesn´t have a concience is beyong me. Sure he has his flaws just as any human being and I don´t agree with a lot of the current policies of the Catholic church although I still consider myself a Catholic but I also believe he acts out of his fervent believes of doing good and not an intent to do evil as you seem to be suggesting.
If hope not for his own sake. If he has a concience then every aids baby in Africa is on his concience.
Then there's the whole bit where he personally was behind the policy to cover up pedophile priests while moving them around so they could continue to prey on children who were threatened with excommunication if they tried to involve the police. I wonder if they'll finally be able to nail him for that once his diplomatic immunity expires.
I still wonder why, the only good reason i can come up with would be some incurable disease or something. Even if it is, this would be kinda unprecedented. Remember the state John Paul was in?
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: 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.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
Pope Benedict basically undid a lot of Vatican II over the past several years. It remains to be seen if this return to orthodoxy/conservativism continues with the new pope. If the state of the Church in the US is any indicator, I think it will continue, and it's not a direction that I like.
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: 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.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
Well I think the new pope could of course do so if he wants. Now the question is, why would the conclave elect somebody who is likely to plan another council?
Yeah I know. But people keep saying they won't change and stay conservative. But the Second Vatican Council counters that argument.
Society has changed a lot since the 1960's and the church has many problems. The conclave is not blind. Some change wouldn't hurt them I think. And conservative believers will keep believing anyway won't they.
I'm getting a rough understanding of what Vatican II was and what it addressed, but can someone explain to me what the significance of it actually was, and how it relates to Benedict's resignation?
On February 12 2013 00:45 Kogan wrote: good move, he sucked :O
User was warned for this post
Please I want to know other than the general hate on religion and catholicism, why do you think did Pope Benedict suck?
i dont hate religion or catholicism ! but a pope who travels to africa to tell the people there that its bad to use condoms... and i think this was just his most known mistake...he was ultraconservative and in my eyes he failed to show critics of catholicism that it could be something good, that the old religion can keep up with the "new" time.
On February 12 2013 01:03 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm getting a rough understanding of what Vatican II was and what it addressed, but can someone explain to me what the significance of it actually was, and how it relates to Benedict's resignation?
Well his resignations means there will be a new pope soon, and a lot of people will hope he will "modernise" the catholic church. And I think the 2nd vatican council is generally being accepted as the most "modern" thing any pope did recently ("recently" in the sense of 2000 years of catholic church), therefore it will be brought up a lot.
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: 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.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
Vatican II wasn't something that was taken lightly. It was an absolutely tremendous reform that shook the foundations in such a way that there are still many conservatives within the Catholic church that disagree with many of the reforms, if not reject the fruits of the council outright. It hasn't even been a full century since the end of Vatican II and the Catholics still are dealing with the implications of it. And you're assuming that the Catholic church as a whole want another fundamental reform. You're not just talking about the relationship of the Church with the world in a political way. The impetus for Vatican II wasn't just to address social and political themes. It was a fundamental restructuring of what can be accepted philosophically and theologically. It was a breakthrough for Rahner and all the new phenomenologist Catholics to make their philosophical methods to be acceptable against the classic Aristotelian-Thomistic orthodoxy that prevailed within the Catholic church at the time, and for such new philosophical methods to be allowed in the doing of theology. Rahner and Vatican II opened up the way for movements like liberation theology even though the Papacy has consistently been hostile to it.
Vatican II was such a fundamental reform that the church is still, in a way, trying to understand it and come to grips with it. Thinking about a Vatican III is just kinda silly when Vatican II is still such a big question. The only reason, I think, that Vatican II even occurred after such a short time since Vatican I is that Vatican I was left incomplete. The climate of the times was also ripe for something like Vatican II after the horrors of the two World Wars. If you look back into Catholic history the last time there was a reform of similar caliber to Vatican II was the Catholic Reformation, which was largely in response to the Protestant Reformation, that began with the Council of Trent. This was all the way back in the 16-17th century.
On February 12 2013 01:03 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm getting a rough understanding of what Vatican II was and what it addressed, but can someone explain to me what the significance of it actually was, and how it relates to Benedict's resignation?
It doesn't relate with Benedict's resignation. Benedict's resignation is both due to his old age and also due to the toll of all the Catholic scandals. There was an interview with Benedict not too long ago that showed that he was very weary and stressed. I only mentioned Vatican II and JPII as Benedict's resignation will be the end of the Papal rule of that particular generation of Catholic intellectual and political figures.
On February 12 2013 01:03 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm getting a rough understanding of what Vatican II was and what it addressed, but can someone explain to me what the significance of it actually was, and how it relates to Benedict's resignation?
An important change was that from that point onwards the language used in the church was changed from Latin to the native language in a country so people good better understand what was going on.
As far as I know there is no direct relation to the resignation of Benedict.
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: 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.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
Vatican II wasn't something that was taken lightly. It was an absolutely tremendous reform that shook the foundations in such a way that there are still many conservatives within the Catholic church that disagree with many of the reforms, if not reject the fruits of the council outright. It hasn't even been a full century since the end of Vatican II and the Catholics still are dealing with the implications of it. And you're assuming that the Catholic church as a whole want another fundamental reform. You're not just talking about the relationship of the Church with the world in a political way. An impetus for Vatican II wasn't just to address social and political themes. It was a fundamental restructuring of what can be accepted philosophically and theologically. It was a breakthrough for Rahner and all the new phenomenologist Catholics to make their philosophical methods to be acceptable against the classic Aristotelian-Thomistic orthodoxy that prevailed within the Catholic church at the time, and for such new philosophical methods to be allowed in the doing of theology. Rahner and Vatican II opened up the way for movements like liberation theology even though the Papacy has consistently been hostile to it.
Vatican II was such a fundamental reform that the church is still, in a way, trying to understand it and come to grips with it. Thinking about a Vatican III is just kinda silly when Vatican II is still such a big question. The only reason, I think, that Vatican II even occurred after such a short time since Vatican I is that Vatican I was left incomplete. The climate of the times was also ripe for something like Vatican II after the horrors of the two World Wars. If you look back into Catholic history the last time there was a reform of similar caliber to Vatican II was the Catholic Reformation, that was largely in response to the Protestant Reformation, that began with the Council of Trent. This was all the way back at the 16-17th century.
Well who knows, for all we know there could have been an internal struggle which caused Benedictus to leave. Losing so much ground in the richest countries in the world can't be something they want to continue? They are tearing down church after church here in Europe.
On February 12 2013 01:03 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm getting a rough understanding of what Vatican II was and what it addressed, but can someone explain to me what the significance of it actually was, and how it relates to Benedict's resignation?
Catholic Mass was not conducted in any language but Latin, and the priest never faced the congregation. Only the priest was allowed to do anything and nobody really understood whether they had any part in what was going on.
Vatican II acknowledged that the Jews were not responsible for Christ's death and that they actually have a valid covenant with God, and Catholics were finally allowed to set foot in other places of worship.
Basically, the Catholic Church was seriously creepy before Vatican II.
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: 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.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
Well I think the new pope could of course do so if he wants. Now the question is, why would the conclave elect somebody who is likely to plan another council?
Yeah I know. But people keep saying they won't change and stay conservative. But the Second Vatican Council counters that argument.
Society has changed a lot since the 1960's and the church has many problems. The conclave is not blind. Some change wouldn't hurt them I think. And conservative believers will keep believing anyway won't they.
I am excited, not because I know much about Catholicism, nor do I know that much about American Elections but I was still going OBAMA, OBAMA whenever it came up in the news.
Just hoping we will have a few candidates/possible candidates so I can pick a favorite and root for them :D
I was drunk this weekend and ending up putting a bunch of paper towels on myself and started calling myself the dubstep pope and blessing people while we danced.
Now this happens.....
Sign me up to be the next pope, I knew there was a reason for everything
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: 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.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
Well I think the new pope could of course do so if he wants. Now the question is, why would the conclave elect somebody who is likely to plan another council?
Yeah I know. But people keep saying they won't change and stay conservative. But the Second Vatican Council counters that argument.
Society has changed a lot since the 1960's and the church has many problems. The conclave is not blind. Some change wouldn't hurt them I think. And conservative believers will keep believing anyway won't they.
Well, they can split off like the Pius brothers.
Maybe. But if the most hardcore conservatives split off and the church under a new pope becomes more in line with todays society and wins the less fundamentalistic christians back that might be worth it. Because fundamentalists are usually a small fraction in any religion.
On February 12 2013 01:03 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm getting a rough understanding of what Vatican II was and what it addressed, but can someone explain to me what the significance of it actually was, and how it relates to Benedict's resignation?
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: 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.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
Vatican II wasn't something that was taken lightly. It was an absolutely tremendous reform that shook the foundations in such a way that there are still many conservatives within the Catholic church that disagree with many of the reforms, if not reject the fruits of the council outright. It hasn't even been a full century since the end of Vatican II and the Catholics still are dealing with the implications of it. And you're assuming that the Catholic church as a whole want another fundamental reform. You're not just talking about the relationship of the Church with the world in a political way. An impetus for Vatican II wasn't just to address social and political themes. It was a fundamental restructuring of what can be accepted philosophically and theologically. It was a breakthrough for Rahner and all the new phenomenologist Catholics to make their philosophical methods to be acceptable against the classic Aristotelian-Thomistic orthodoxy that prevailed within the Catholic church at the time, and for such new philosophical methods to be allowed in the doing of theology. Rahner and Vatican II opened up the way for movements like liberation theology even though the Papacy has consistently been hostile to it.
Vatican II was such a fundamental reform that the church is still, in a way, trying to understand it and come to grips with it. Thinking about a Vatican III is just kinda silly when Vatican II is still such a big question. The only reason, I think, that Vatican II even occurred after such a short time since Vatican I is that Vatican I was left incomplete. The climate of the times was also ripe for something like Vatican II after the horrors of the two World Wars. If you look back into Catholic history the last time there was a reform of similar caliber to Vatican II was the Catholic Reformation, that was largely in response to the Protestant Reformation, that began with the Council of Trent. This was all the way back at the 16-17th century.
Well who knows, for all we know there could have been an internal struggle which caused Benedictus to leave. Losing so much ground in the richest countries in the world can't be something they want to continue? They are tearing down church after church here in Europe.
Although it is said Benedictus was indeed tired of the internal struggles and political games that were being played in the Vatican and you make a valid point about Christianity in Europe there also is a tendency to dismantle the church in countries like the Netherlands and tighten the reigns again untill you remain with a core of "true" conservative believers. Our current Archbishop (and cardinal as of February 2012) in the Netherlands (Eijk) has said on several occasions (will look for the references) that he rather has a small congregation of true believers as a large more progressive congregation. This indicates imo that the Catholic church is looking for a more tightly controlled form of religion instead of loosening and adapting to modern society.
There are also several indications that an African or South-American cardinal will be chosen as the new pope. In general the doctrine of the church on these continents is more conservative as in western Europe so that also doesn´t lead me to believe we will get a more progressive pope anytime soon.
EDIT: Also for those people wondering how many cardinals there are and who is eligable to vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_of_Cardinals & http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_van_Kardinalen The second link is in dutch but has imo a more clearly lay out list and some usefull statistics near the bottom (that are probably understandable even if you don´t speak dutch) on for example which continents the cardinals are from.
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: 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.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
Vatican II wasn't something that was taken lightly. It was an absolutely tremendous reform that shook the foundations in such a way that there are still many conservatives within the Catholic church that disagree with many of the reforms, if not reject the fruits of the council outright. It hasn't even been a full century since the end of Vatican II and the Catholics still are dealing with the implications of it. And you're assuming that the Catholic church as a whole want another fundamental reform. You're not just talking about the relationship of the Church with the world in a political way. An impetus for Vatican II wasn't just to address social and political themes. It was a fundamental restructuring of what can be accepted philosophically and theologically. It was a breakthrough for Rahner and all the new phenomenologist Catholics to make their philosophical methods to be acceptable against the classic Aristotelian-Thomistic orthodoxy that prevailed within the Catholic church at the time, and for such new philosophical methods to be allowed in the doing of theology. Rahner and Vatican II opened up the way for movements like liberation theology even though the Papacy has consistently been hostile to it.
Vatican II was such a fundamental reform that the church is still, in a way, trying to understand it and come to grips with it. Thinking about a Vatican III is just kinda silly when Vatican II is still such a big question. The only reason, I think, that Vatican II even occurred after such a short time since Vatican I is that Vatican I was left incomplete. The climate of the times was also ripe for something like Vatican II after the horrors of the two World Wars. If you look back into Catholic history the last time there was a reform of similar caliber to Vatican II was the Catholic Reformation, that was largely in response to the Protestant Reformation, that began with the Council of Trent. This was all the way back at the 16-17th century.
Well who knows, for all we know there could have been an internal struggle which caused Benedictus to leave. Losing so much ground in the richest countries in the world can't be something they want to continue? They are tearing down church after church here in Europe.
Although it is said Benedictus was indeed tired of the internal struggles and political games that were being played in the Vatican and you make a valid point about Christianity in Europe there also is a tendency to dismantle the church in countries like the Netherlands and tighten the reigns again untill you remain with a core of "true" conservative believers. Our current Archbishop (and cardinal as of February 2012) in the Netherlands (Eijk) has said on several occasions (will look for the references) that he rather has a small congregation of true believers as a large more progressive congregation. This indicates imo that the Catholic church is looking for a more tightly controlled form of religion instead of loosening and adapting to modern society.
There are also several indications that an African or South-American cardinal will be chosen as the new pope. In general the doctrine of the church on these continents is more conservative as in western Europe so that also doesn´t lead me to believe we will get a more progressive pope anytime soon.
Cardinal Eijk is one of the more conservative ones though. And call me cynical, but I think money is also important. Not for the true believers, but for the organisation. Do you think the people who run the financial part of the vatican would prefer Africa instead of the western countries?
It's German, from 16. April 2012 (!) and this guy is telling us, that the pope will resign if he thinks that he is too weak to go on with his "job"! It seems, that he (Benedict) didn't like how his predecessor Johannes Paul II. still worked while he was so sick in the end and he wouldn't do that!
Good for the world, popes should disapear along with their church.
Im sorry for the believers but the catholic church has always been a calamity slowing down the progress and with all the crimes it has comitted it s hard to believe it still exists.
Narrow minded people, dirty money, manipulators, im sure he resigned because of internal pressures just like it has always been etc... Religions with so much power over the people should just die. You can take a good exemple of that power with the manifest against gay wedding, the biggest meeting of the fifty last yr (s in france because the rotten catholic core doesnt want gays to marry.
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: 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.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
Vatican II wasn't something that was taken lightly. It was an absolutely tremendous reform that shook the foundations in such a way that there are still many conservatives within the Catholic church that disagree with many of the reforms, if not reject the fruits of the council outright. It hasn't even been a full century since the end of Vatican II and the Catholics still are dealing with the implications of it. And you're assuming that the Catholic church as a whole want another fundamental reform. You're not just talking about the relationship of the Church with the world in a political way. An impetus for Vatican II wasn't just to address social and political themes. It was a fundamental restructuring of what can be accepted philosophically and theologically. It was a breakthrough for Rahner and all the new phenomenologist Catholics to make their philosophical methods to be acceptable against the classic Aristotelian-Thomistic orthodoxy that prevailed within the Catholic church at the time, and for such new philosophical methods to be allowed in the doing of theology. Rahner and Vatican II opened up the way for movements like liberation theology even though the Papacy has consistently been hostile to it.
Vatican II was such a fundamental reform that the church is still, in a way, trying to understand it and come to grips with it. Thinking about a Vatican III is just kinda silly when Vatican II is still such a big question. The only reason, I think, that Vatican II even occurred after such a short time since Vatican I is that Vatican I was left incomplete. The climate of the times was also ripe for something like Vatican II after the horrors of the two World Wars. If you look back into Catholic history the last time there was a reform of similar caliber to Vatican II was the Catholic Reformation, that was largely in response to the Protestant Reformation, that began with the Council of Trent. This was all the way back at the 16-17th century.
Well who knows, for all we know there could have been an internal struggle which caused Benedictus to leave. Losing so much ground in the richest countries in the world can't be something they want to continue? They are tearing down church after church here in Europe.
Although it is said Benedictus was indeed tired of the internal struggles and political games that were being played in the Vatican and you make a valid point about Christianity in Europe there also is a tendency to dismantle the church in countries like the Netherlands and tighten the reigns again untill you remain with a core of "true" conservative believers. Our current Archbishop (and cardinal as of February 2012) in the Netherlands (Eijk) has said on several occasions (will look for the references) that he rather has a small congregation of true believers as a large more progressive congregation. This indicates imo that the Catholic church is looking for a more tightly controlled form of religion instead of loosening and adapting to modern society.
There are also several indications that an African or South-American cardinal will be chosen as the new pope. In general the doctrine of the church on these continents is more conservative as in western Europe so that also doesn´t lead me to believe we will get a more progressive pope anytime soon.
Cardinal Eijk is one of the more conservative ones though. And call me cynical, but I think money is also important. Not for the true believers, but for the organisation. Do you think the people who run the financial part of the vatican would prefer Africa instead of the western countries?
True and the fact that of the 118 cardinals eligable to vote in the upcoming election there are 62 from Europe and 56 from the rest of the world could mean you are correct in your assumptions. I personally though am not going to place a bet on it.
On February 12 2013 00:45 Kogan wrote: good move, he sucked :O
User was warned for this post
Please I want to know other than the general hate on religion and catholicism, why do you think did Pope Benedict suck?
i dont hate religion or catholicism ! but a pope who travels to africa to tell the people there that its bad to use condoms... and i think this was just his most known mistake...he was ultraconservative and in my eyes he failed to show critics of catholicism that it could be something good, that the old religion can keep up with the "new" time.
I am in no way is intending this to be a discussion, but rather just to offset the skewed view you are presenting, Catholic teaching isn't to tell those people to continue having unrestricted/uncontrolled/rape sex while telling them that use of condom isn't bad. But it is to teach them that unrestricted/uncontrolled/rape sex is bad period, with or without condoms. Catholic's ban on condom is getting such a distorted publicity because it's not about condom in the first place at all. It is about having responsible sex, which addresses the issue of HIV and other STD way beyond what condom can do. (and fyi, condom doesn't completely eliminate the risk of STD - STD can still be transmitted through oral sex and through other bodily fluids other than semen/vaginal mucus)
Let's stop wrongly discriminating on the current pope for which he shouldn't be blamed for.
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: 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.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
Vatican II wasn't something that was taken lightly. It was an absolutely tremendous reform that shook the foundations in such a way that there are still many conservatives within the Catholic church that disagree with many of the reforms, if not reject the fruits of the council outright. It hasn't even been a full century since the end of Vatican II and the Catholics still are dealing with the implications of it. And you're assuming that the Catholic church as a whole want another fundamental reform. You're not just talking about the relationship of the Church with the world in a political way. An impetus for Vatican II wasn't just to address social and political themes. It was a fundamental restructuring of what can be accepted philosophically and theologically. It was a breakthrough for Rahner and all the new phenomenologist Catholics to make their philosophical methods to be acceptable against the classic Aristotelian-Thomistic orthodoxy that prevailed within the Catholic church at the time, and for such new philosophical methods to be allowed in the doing of theology. Rahner and Vatican II opened up the way for movements like liberation theology even though the Papacy has consistently been hostile to it.
Vatican II was such a fundamental reform that the church is still, in a way, trying to understand it and come to grips with it. Thinking about a Vatican III is just kinda silly when Vatican II is still such a big question. The only reason, I think, that Vatican II even occurred after such a short time since Vatican I is that Vatican I was left incomplete. The climate of the times was also ripe for something like Vatican II after the horrors of the two World Wars. If you look back into Catholic history the last time there was a reform of similar caliber to Vatican II was the Catholic Reformation, that was largely in response to the Protestant Reformation, that began with the Council of Trent. This was all the way back at the 16-17th century.
Well who knows, for all we know there could have been an internal struggle which caused Benedictus to leave. Losing so much ground in the richest countries in the world can't be something they want to continue? They are tearing down church after church here in Europe.
Although it is said Benedictus was indeed tired of the internal struggles and political games that were being played in the Vatican and you make a valid point about Christianity in Europe there also is a tendency to dismantle the church in countries like the Netherlands and tighten the reigns again untill you remain with a core of "true" conservative believers. Our current Archbishop (and cardinal as of February 2012) in the Netherlands (Eijk) has said on several occasions (will look for the references) that he rather has a small congregation of true believers as a large more progressive congregation. This indicates imo that the Catholic church is looking for a more tightly controlled form of religion instead of loosening and adapting to modern society.
There are also several indications that an African or South-American cardinal will be chosen as the new pope. In general the doctrine of the church on these continents is more conservative as in western Europe so that also doesn´t lead me to believe we will get a more progressive pope anytime soon.
Cardinal Eijk is one of the more conservative ones though. And call me cynical, but I think money is also important. Not for the true believers, but for the organisation. Do you think the people who run the financial part of the vatican would prefer Africa instead of the western countries?
True and the fact that of the 118 cardinals eligable to vote in the upcoming election there are 62 from Europe and 56 from the rest of the world could mean you are correct in your assumptions. I personally though am not going to place a bet on it.
Also for those people wondering how many cardinals there are and who is eligable to vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_of_Cardinals & http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_van_Kardinalen The second link is in dutch but has imo a more clearly lay out list and some usefull statistics near the bottom (that are probably understandable even if you don´t speak dutch) on for example which continents the cardinals are from.
Maybe you are right. The youngest cardinal is 54 but the majority was born way before world war 2, if you look at it like that not much change can be expected indeed.
On February 12 2013 01:59 Skilledblob wrote: catholic church cannot change and will not change. Actually it must not change in order to uphold their dogmas.
Surely; therefore Aquinas, Counter-Reformation, and Vatican II.
Irish bookmaker Paddy Power had the same three cardinals as leading contenders but placed Ouellet as favourite ahead of the two Africans. Britain's Ladbrokes narrowly made Turkson its initial frontrunner.
"I have been taking bets on the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury for as long as I care to remember," said William Hill spokesman Graham Sharpe, denying that gambling on the papal succession was blasphemous.
On February 12 2013 01:33 Grovbolle wrote: I am excited, not because I know much about Catholicism, nor do I know that much about American Elections but I was still going OBAMA, OBAMA whenever it came up in the news.
Just hoping we will have a few candidates/possible candidates so I can pick a favorite and root for them :D
Difficult because the ballots are supposed to be secret (the only official communication is made once a pope is elected).
5 names have leaked during the last conclave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_conclave,_2005): - Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) - Cardinal Martini (Milan, died august 2012 - described as progressist) - Cardinal Ruini (Sant'Agnese - described as conservative. Born 1931, he is over 80, so cannot be a candidate this time ) - Cardinal Bergoglio (Argentine- described as conservative. Born 1936, he is 77 and may give it a try )
No doubt we will have a new list in the next few weeks.
On February 12 2013 01:59 Skilledblob wrote: catholic church cannot change and will not change. Actually it must not change in order to uphold their dogmas.
Surely; therefore Aquinas, Counter-Reformation, and Vatican II.
that's reinterpretation of old texts not change. And that's pretty much the only thing the catholics can do. Reinterpret old texts
On February 12 2013 01:59 Skilledblob wrote: catholic church cannot change and will not change. Actually it must not change in order to uphold their dogmas.
Surely; therefore Aquinas, Counter-Reformation, and Vatican II.
that's reinterpretation of old texts not change. And that's pretty much the only thing the catholics can do. Reinterpret old texts
Which is why Aquinas' writing was banned as heretical, right? Of course now, after his canonization in the church and to the history of Westernt thought, we would look at Aquinas as an orthodox theologian but during his time the "new" Aristotelian thought that was imported from the Islamic thinkers was considered heretical and opposite to the orthodox neo-Platonism that was picked up Christians since the very beginning. The same stupid shit happened with the phenomenology of Karl Rahner that was condemned by Pius XII and the same with JPII, who had his thesis rejected by his supervisor because it was too phenomenological instead of being in line with the neo-Scholastic orthodoxy.
I hear this stupid "must not change" nonsense when it comes to Christian thought all the bloody time and it's always utterly and completely inane. Doctrinal orthodoxy is not allied with liberalism or conservatism in any way.
On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote: I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health.
Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions..
yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
Maybe it wasn't his own volition which made him join. But still, as a non-Christian I thought that John Paul was an amazing representative for the Vatican and even if you disagreed with almost everything the Church stands for he was still an incredibly likable and charismatic individual. My opinion is simply that the Pope isnt really renowned for "brain power". He's a figure head, he's a symbol, a political item, not a thinker. It doesnt really matter if it was his choice or not, the fact is he was a Hitler Youth.
I honestly don't know much about Catholicism, but do the majority of believers actually still listen to and follow the word of the pope? With all the stuff about not using condoms and openly defending pedophiles that's happened, it's pretty hard to believe. It's a shame that the figureheads of such a large religion have historically been lacking in both common sense and moral integrity.
On February 12 2013 03:08 epicanthic wrote: I honestly don't know much about Catholicism, but do the majority of believers actually still listen to and follow the word of the pope? With all the stuff about not using condoms and openly defending pedophiles that's happened, it's pretty hard to believe. It's a shame that the figureheads of such a large religion have historically been lacking in both common sense and moral integrity.
My understanding is that unless you're orthodox, most Catholics view him more of a symbolic leader rather than one whose word must be followed 100% of the time.
Well, I don't like the catholic church or religion in general, but I honestly think it's not such a bad move for a pope to resign if he has health-problems or is simply getting too old.
From an objective standpoint, does the church really want sm1 that can barely move or can't talk in a manner that any1 even understands him, as their spiritual leader?
But of course things aren't based on common sense in the catholic church, so it's a huge upset that sm1 resigns at a reasonable age.
He was incredibly active for someone of his age. Particularly in the modern world, with a need to maintain a constant presence, and with the problems he inherited (the child sex scandals and all that), he had a hard job.
That said, it's still interesting he's resigning without apparent health troubles.
On February 12 2013 03:08 epicanthic wrote: I honestly don't know much about Catholicism, but do the majority of believers actually still listen to and follow the word of the pope? With all the stuff about not using condoms and openly defending pedophiles that's happened, it's pretty hard to believe. It's a shame that the figureheads of such a large religion have historically been lacking in both common sense and moral integrity.
I'd say usually it's a typical case of doublethink/hypocrisy. While they say what the Pope says is very important, and even genuinely believe so, they will ignore many of the teachings. They will use condoms, but oftentimes admit that it's wrong. As for paedophiles, they will downplay the problem, some of them are in denial.
On the other hand, I wouldn't say most things the Pope is involved with are not that controversial, so non-believers may ignore it and believers don't have a hard time agreeing with it.
On February 12 2013 03:21 Tal wrote: He was incredibly active for someone of his age. Particularly in the modern world, with a need to maintain a constant presence, and with the problems he inherited (the child sex scandals and all that), he had a hard job.
That said, it's still interesting he's resigning without apparent health troubles.
He did not inherit the sex scandals problem. He was one of the major contributors, not a sex offender, but someone whose policies made this into a huge issue. The problem could've been dealt with swiftly, but they chose to cover it up. This is the reason why it all backfired like that.
On February 12 2013 03:21 Tal wrote: That said, it's still interesting he's resigning without apparent health troubles.
I think he's just tired. Also he published 66 books and few other works and therefore I think he must be pretty wealthy.
On February 12 2013 02:30 Rassy wrote: This is so unexpected and unusual, that i doubt it was 100% voluntary.
He actually stated in the book called the light of the world a few years back that pope should resign once he gets too old, so it's not all that unexpected.
On February 11 2013 20:59 Mafe wrote: My guess is he's got a diagnosis of something like Alzeheimer's disease. And he wants a conscious leader for the catholic church.
Yeah I'd say this makes the most sense. The chances that he grew a concience are lower than the chances of the next Pope being in favour of gay marriage.
Why you are even contemplating he doesn´t have a concience is beyond me. Sure he has his flaws just as any human being and I don´t agree with a lot of the current policies of the Catholic church although I still consider myself a Catholic but I also believe he acts out of his fervent believes of doing good and not an intent to do evil as you seem to be suggesting.
Naturally, the papacy will attract many people who lack a conscience, but it's still more likely that he has one. If you believe you're doing the right thing, you don't need to lack a conscience to do it.
On February 12 2013 03:08 epicanthic wrote: I honestly don't know much about Catholicism, but do the majority of believers actually still listen to and follow the word of the pope? With all the stuff about not using condoms and openly defending pedophiles that's happened, it's pretty hard to believe. It's a shame that the figureheads of such a large religion have historically been lacking in both common sense and moral integrity.
I'd say usually it's a typical case of doublethink/hypocrisy. While they say what the Pope says is very important, and even genuinely believe so, they will ignore many of the teachings. They will use condoms, but oftentimes admit that it's wrong. As for paedophiles, they will downplay the problem, some of them are in denial.
On the other hand, I wouldn't say most things the Pope is involved with are not that controversial, so non-believers may ignore it and believers don't have a hard time agreeing with it.
On February 12 2013 03:21 Tal wrote: He was incredibly active for someone of his age. Particularly in the modern world, with a need to maintain a constant presence, and with the problems he inherited (the child sex scandals and all that), he had a hard job.
That said, it's still interesting he's resigning without apparent health troubles.
He did not inherit the sex scandals problem. He was one of the major contributors, not a sex offender, but someone whose policies made this into a huge issue. The problem could've been dealt with swiftly, but they chose to cover it up. This is the reason why it all backfired like that.
Yes, you're right. I didn't mean to suggest he wasn't a part of it, Iprobably should have said 'having to deal with the child sex scandals' instead of inherited
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.
I think it's still important to realize and respect the freedom of individual belief, no matter how absurd. Sure I might still think that people who truly believe in Spaghetti Monsters or 9/11 conspiracies are a bit silly or even ignorant. But that's still their freedom of thought, which I think is one of the most significant aspects of a human being.
On February 12 2013 03:08 epicanthic wrote: I honestly don't know much about Catholicism, but do the majority of believers actually still listen to and follow the word of the pope? With all the stuff about not using condoms and openly defending pedophiles that's happened, it's pretty hard to believe. It's a shame that the figureheads of such a large religion have historically been lacking in both common sense and moral integrity.
My understanding is that unless you're orthodox, most Catholics view him more of a symbolic leader rather than one whose word must be followed 100% of the time.
I mean he is the leader of the church. To me its like the relationship between american citizens and the president. You may not like what he says, or agree with him, but youre sort of supposed to do what he says. Perhaps, as not the most observant catholic my view on this is flawed so if I'm just wrong it would be great if someone could correct me.
On February 12 2013 03:08 epicanthic wrote: I honestly don't know much about Catholicism, but do the majority of believers actually still listen to and follow the word of the pope? With all the stuff about not using condoms and openly defending pedophiles that's happened, it's pretty hard to believe. It's a shame that the figureheads of such a large religion have historically been lacking in both common sense and moral integrity.
I'd say usually it's a typical case of doublethink/hypocrisy. While they say what the Pope says is very important, and even genuinely believe so, they will ignore many of the teachings. They will use condoms, but oftentimes admit that it's wrong. As for paedophiles, they will downplay the problem, some of them are in denial.
On the other hand, I wouldn't say most things the Pope is involved with are not that controversial, so non-believers may ignore it and believers don't have a hard time agreeing with it.
On February 12 2013 03:21 Tal wrote: He was incredibly active for someone of his age. Particularly in the modern world, with a need to maintain a constant presence, and with the problems he inherited (the child sex scandals and all that), he had a hard job.
That said, it's still interesting he's resigning without apparent health troubles.
He did not inherit the sex scandals problem. He was one of the major contributors, not a sex offender, but someone whose policies made this into a huge issue. The problem could've been dealt with swiftly, but they chose to cover it up. This is the reason why it all backfired like that.
Yes, you're right. I didn't mean to suggest he wasn't a part of it, Iprobably should have said 'having to deal with the child sex scandals' instead of inherited
Well, he's been dealing with the scandals since the 70s. He was the guy who threatened church officials with excommunication for sharing evidence with the authorities or the press in the early 2000s. He was pretty much running the Vatican for a sick John Paul during that time.
Anyways, no chance whatsoever in my mind that he actually just declines cuz of health issue/ doesnt feel fit. I d be very interested in the background politics, pressures and such which led here.
When we ll have the new pope we might speculate, based on his views and actions
1. A papal resignation is not new. The last one was in 1415, when Gregory XII resigned in order to restore the unity of the Catholic Church.
2. In many of Benedict XVI's epistolaries and pastorals, even when he was still a Cardinal, he has always written about a Pope resigning due to old age. This belief is strengthened after the experience with Pope John Paull II, who spent the last years, and days, of his papacy in physical deterioration, and devastating the Vatican and the Catholic leadership and believers worldwide
3. Being one of the most hard-working and previous head of one of the most work-heavy divisions of the Vatican, it would have been obvious to Benedict that he is unfit to meet the physical demands of the papacy.
4. The recent scandal in Vatican involving his butler, who claimed that he was exposing the documents because he thinks the Pope is not being informed of the things happening around him, must be the clinching event to him that he can no longer perform his best as Pope in managing the affairs of the Vatican.
5. The scandals are not unique to his reign, he has inherited from a hundred year since. While his action is far from admirable, he is not the be-all-and-all person to blame for it.
6. Retiring at a relatively healthier state would give the Pope some influence, though not actually vote for, on the next Pope.
Would be interesting that if the successor is chosen from Africa if that will signal a change in attitude towards the region in terms of AIDS, and safe sex etc.
On February 12 2013 03:08 epicanthic wrote: I honestly don't know much about Catholicism, but do the majority of believers actually still listen to and follow the word of the pope? With all the stuff about not using condoms and openly defending pedophiles that's happened, it's pretty hard to believe. It's a shame that the figureheads of such a large religion have historically been lacking in both common sense and moral integrity.
Well I can only speak for dutch catholics I know I know like 25 Catholics pretty well and my uncle is the only firm, conservative believer. The others all believe in God, Christ, go to church with Christmas, want to marry in the church and that's about it. They look at the vatican pretty much the same way as I do as a none believer, but they do consider themselve catholic nonetheless.
On February 12 2013 03:08 epicanthic wrote: I honestly don't know much about Catholicism, but do the majority of believers actually still listen to and follow the word of the pope? With all the stuff about not using condoms and openly defending pedophiles that's happened, it's pretty hard to believe. It's a shame that the figureheads of such a large religion have historically been lacking in both common sense and moral integrity.
Well I can only speak for dutch catholics I know I know like 25 Catholics pretty well and my uncle is the only firm, conservative believer. The others all believe in God, Christ, go to church with Christmas, want to marry in the church and that's about it. They look at the vatican pretty much the same way as I do as a none believer, but they do consider themselve catholic nonetheless.
Considering the fact that the Netherlands is one of the most liberal and "progressive" countries in Europe, I don't think Dutch Catholics are really representative of what an average Catholic believes. To me that seems like an ultracasual Christian, not even Catholic, because that involves a whole lot more than just what you've described. They consider themselves Catholics, but it's only because they were raised in families that considered themselves "Catholic". Happens in Poland, as well, but to a much lesser degree.
On February 12 2013 03:08 epicanthic wrote: I honestly don't know much about Catholicism, but do the majority of believers actually still listen to and follow the word of the pope? With all the stuff about not using condoms and openly defending pedophiles that's happened, it's pretty hard to believe. It's a shame that the figureheads of such a large religion have historically been lacking in both common sense and moral integrity.
Well I can only speak for dutch catholics I know I know like 25 Catholics pretty well and my uncle is the only firm, conservative believer. The others all believe in God, Christ, go to church with Christmas, want to marry in the church and that's about it. They look at the vatican pretty much the same way as I do as a none believer, but they do consider themselve catholic nonetheless.
Considering the fact that the Netherlands is one of the most liberal and "progressive" countries in Europe, I don't think Dutch Catholics are really representative of what an average Catholic believes. To me that seems like an ultracasual Christian, not even Catholic, because that involves a whole lot more than just what you've described. They consider themselves Catholics, but it's only because they were raised in families that considered themselves "Catholic". Happens in Poland, as well, but to a much lesser degree.
Yes you are totally right. Still, the church considers them catholics and they do themselves too, so who am I to disagree
They should pick a cardinal from south america, well i hope they will. Catholic church could realy use a makeover and another european pope would be a missed opportunity i think. Hope they brave and progressive enough to elect someone from that region.
On February 12 2013 04:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Would be interesting that if the successor is chosen from Africa if that will signal a change in attitude towards the region in terms of AIDS, and safe sex etc.
Sorry, but the Catholic Church will never change it's moral teachings on condoms etc.
On February 12 2013 04:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Would be interesting that if the successor is chosen from Africa if that will signal a change in attitude towards the region in terms of AIDS, and safe sex etc.
Sorry, but the Catholic Church will never change it's moral teachings on condoms etc.
Actually, it probably will, in time. Benedict already made a speech permitting condoms for prostitutes in dire need. That would have been unheard of 20 years ago. The Church is slow, but it's not motionless. Contraception, so long as it doesn't induce abortions, will likely be permitted in some capacity within the next few decades. It will probably always be frowned upon if used exclusively, though.
Glad to see him resign; very mature move. I didn't like him particularly much since he's too conservative, but he's at least a fairly upstanding man to resign due to age unlike PJPII, who stayed on far, far too long.
On February 12 2013 04:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Would be interesting that if the successor is chosen from Africa if that will signal a change in attitude towards the region in terms of AIDS, and safe sex etc.
Sorry, but the Catholic Church will never change it's moral teachings on condoms etc.
Actually, it probably will, in time. Benedict already made a speech permitting condoms for prostitutes in dire need. That would have been unheard of 20 years ago. The Church is slow, but it's not motionless. Contraception, so long as it doesn't induce abortions, will likely be permitted in some capacity within the next few decades. It will probably always be frowned upon if used exclusively, though.
Glad to see him resign; very mature move. I didn't like him particularly much since he's too conservative, but he's at least a fairly upstanding man to resign due to age unlike PJPII, who stayed on far, far too long.
As I've pointed out previously in this thread, the bolded statement is false. The newspapers took a mile when they were given an inch.
On February 12 2013 04:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Would be interesting that if the successor is chosen from Africa if that will signal a change in attitude towards the region in terms of AIDS, and safe sex etc.
Sorry, but the Catholic Church will never change it's moral teachings on condoms etc.
Actually, it probably will, in time. Benedict already made a speech permitting condoms for prostitutes in dire need. That would have been unheard of 20 years ago. The Church is slow, but it's not motionless. Contraception, so long as it doesn't induce abortions, will likely be permitted in some capacity within the next few decades. It will probably always be frowned upon if used exclusively, though.
Glad to see him resign; very mature move. I didn't like him particularly much since he's too conservative, but he's at least a fairly upstanding man to resign due to age unlike PJPII, who stayed on far, far too long.
The Church recognizes prostitution and sex outside marriage as gravely sinful. Therefore there is no teaching on whether using condoms outside marriage is moral or not because it's irrelevant. He also did not say it was moral, but simply that in the case of a male prostitute that "where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility," In other words a first step in realizing the consequences of the actions the prostitute is doing.
Contraception will never be permitted by the Church. It already weathered that storm of pressure in the 1960s and with the release of Humanae Vitae kept it's teaching unchanged. The outcry for the teaching to be changed was FAR greater then. It's not even close now.
I'm not a catholic nor a religious person, but in my opinion, that's a disappointing move Benoit made. To me, he's a quitter. You don't just abandon such a highly spiritual & religious task. You're the freaking leader, dude, you don't just resign. Either you're a Pope 4 lyfe, or you're a loser. I mean, Jesus didn't quit when he had to go through all his trials, he didn't "resign", because he knew how important his mission was.
On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote: I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health.
Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions..
yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
Maybe it wasn't his own volition which made him join. But still, as a non-Christian I thought that John Paul was an amazing representative for the Vatican and even if you disagreed with almost everything the Church stands for he was still an incredibly likable and charismatic individual. My opinion is simply that the Pope isnt really renowned for "brain power". He's a figure head, he's a symbol, a political item, not a thinker. It doesnt really matter if it was his choice or not, the fact is he was a Hitler Youth.
Please try to not make it sound like being a Hitler-Youth = Evil person. A lot of Germans were members of the nazi party as well because you kind of had to
On February 12 2013 05:15 Al Bundy wrote: I'm not a catholic nor a religious person, but in my opinion, that's a disappointing move Benoit made. To me, he's a quitter. You don't just abandon such a highly spiritual & religious task. You're the freaking leader, dude, you don't just resign. Either you're a Pope 4 lyfe, or you're a loser. I mean, Jesus didn't quit when he had to go through all his trials, he didn't "resign", because he knew how important his mission was.
That a sitting Pope was able to identify his own physical ailings and inability to continue leading and then bow out, particularly after the slow withering of John Paul II previously, is actually an incredibly progressive event for the Catholic Church. The Pope is not Jesus, nor is he meant to be.
On February 12 2013 05:25 IceCube wrote: For me his move is a sign of weakness. Any leader Christian or not after abandoning his post is found either weak or not worthy at the first place.
I'm a Christian and I do believe in God and this is my honest opinion of the matter at hand.
That's the entire point.......Benedict considered himself too weak to maintain his position as head of the Church, therefore he stepped down. He is 85 ya know.
On February 12 2013 05:25 IceCube wrote: For me his move is a sign of weakness. Any leader Christian or not after abandoning his post is found either weak or not worthy at the first place.
I'm a Christian and I do believe in God and this is my honest opinion of the matter at hand.
That's the entire point.......Benedict considered himself too weak to maintain his position as head of the Church, therefore he stepped down. He is 85 ya know.
You are right and that's the whole point, but what I meant was that he should set an example in his faith to all of us, the followers, in my eyes that's one of the main quests for a good leader. So now when we are in a hard spot (old, depressed, hungry...whatever, should we all just quit?)
I seriously doubt the Pope knows TL exists, but he must have already considered everything that's discussed here beforehand. You don't just do something for the first time in 600 years without thinking over all the turmoil it brings. Whether people agree or not, he is very courageous making this decision.
On February 12 2013 05:25 IceCube wrote: For me his move is a sign of weakness. Any leader Christian or not after abandoning his post is found either weak or not worthy at the first place.
I'm a Christian and I do believe in God and this is my honest opinion of the matter at hand.
That's the entire point.......Benedict considered himself too weak to maintain his position as head of the Church, therefore he stepped down. He is 85 ya know.
You are right and that's the whole point, but what I meant was that he should set an example in his faith to all of us, the followers, in my eyes that's one of the main quests for a good leader. So now when we are in a hard spot (old, depressed, hungry...whatever, should we all just quit?)
Errrrrrr what?
Seriously?
We just (as in not 10 years ago) had a pope who literally could do nothing in the last 2 years of his reign and you want to go back to that?
Frankly it is a sign of moral fiber to recognise that it is time to take a step back and let someone else lead. No other institution in the world expects their heads (not even a figurehead, but the person who is supposed to be in control) to serve on their deathbed.
Yes one of his tasks is to set a good example for the believers of his faith. Where I disagree completely with what you have said is that he is "just" quitting. He served for 7 years at an age where almost everyone else just wants to sit back and spend time with their grandchildren. Frankly that must be enough.
On February 12 2013 05:25 IceCube wrote: For me his move is a sign of weakness. Any leader Christian or not after abandoning his post is found either weak or not worthy at the first place.
I'm a Christian and I do believe in God and this is my honest opinion of the matter at hand.
That's the entire point.......Benedict considered himself too weak to maintain his position as head of the Church, therefore he stepped down. He is 85 ya know.
You are right and that's the whole point, but what I meant was that he should set an example in his faith to all of us, the followers, in my eyes that's one of the main quests for a good leader. So now when we are in a hard spot (old, depressed, hungry...whatever, should we all just quit?)
Errrrrrr what?
Seriously?
We just (as in not 10 years ago) had a pope who literally could do nothing in the last 2 years of his reign and you want to go back to that?
Frankly it is a sign of moral fiber to recognise that it is time to take a step back and let someone else lead. No other institution in the world expects their heads (not even a figurehead, but the person who is supposed to be in control) to serve on their deathbed.
Yes one of his tasks is to set a good example for the believers of his faith. Where I disagree completely with what you have said is that he is "just" quitting. He served for 7 years at an age where almost everyone else just wants to sit back and spend time with their grandchildren. Frankly that must be enough.
You said it yourself right there. He was dying and he still stood at the head of Christian Church, giving his last breath for what he stood for and showed true example of a great believer and faith in our Lord.
I'm guessing he also knew what was going to happen to him and he could have chosen easier path and just live the last days with his family or the closest ones but he didn't. He died gracefully in his faith and didn't broke 600 years old tradition of ones before him.
On February 12 2013 05:35 KingMel wrote: EG.Benedict.XVI
On February 12 2013 05:43 Bashnek wrote: incoming EGBenedictRC.
Best posts! Seriously though, don't see why this is a big deal. No bigger deal than when Queen Beatrix made her announcement.
You said it yourself right there. He was dying and he still stood at the head of Christian Church, giving his last breath for what he stood for and showed true example of a great believer and faith in our Lord.
I'm guessing he also knew what was going to happen to him and he could have chosen easier path and just live the last days with his family or the closest ones but he didn't. He died gracefully in his faith and didn't broke 600 years old tradition of ones before him.
Just because no one has done it for six hundred years doesn't mean it's something that goes against the Church. Considering Pope Benedict XVI is the head of the Church, surrounded by just about every top expert in canon law (of which he is also one), I'm pretty sure he knows what he's doing.
Really off topic here, but isn't it about time we stop using Roman numerals for good?
Maybe. At least it makes some sense here since it's the Roman Catholic Church, after all. Super Bowl, you have no excuse.
On February 12 2013 05:25 IceCube wrote: For me his move is a sign of weakness. Any leader Christian or not after abandoning his post is found either weak or not worthy at the first place.
I'm a Christian and I do believe in God and this is my honest opinion of the matter at hand.
That's the entire point.......Benedict considered himself too weak to maintain his position as head of the Church, therefore he stepped down. He is 85 ya know.
You are right and that's the whole point, but what I meant was that he should set an example in his faith to all of us, the followers, in my eyes that's one of the main quests for a good leader. So now when we are in a hard spot (old, depressed, hungry...whatever, should we all just quit?)
Surely, when we are at the end of our lives and are all too aware that old age and perhaps even senility is settling in, instead of passing on our positions to the younger and capable we should just sit on our little thrones. Certainly any organization would benefit from this, for who needs the vitality of the next generation?
On February 12 2013 05:25 IceCube wrote: For me his move is a sign of weakness. Any leader Christian or not after abandoning his post is found either weak or not worthy at the first place.
I'm a Christian and I do believe in God and this is my honest opinion of the matter at hand.
That's the entire point.......Benedict considered himself too weak to maintain his position as head of the Church, therefore he stepped down. He is 85 ya know.
You are right and that's the whole point, but what I meant was that he should set an example in his faith to all of us, the followers, in my eyes that's one of the main quests for a good leader. So now when we are in a hard spot (old, depressed, hungry...whatever, should we all just quit?)
Errrrrrr what?
Seriously?
We just (as in not 10 years ago) had a pope who literally could do nothing in the last 2 years of his reign and you want to go back to that?
Frankly it is a sign of moral fiber to recognise that it is time to take a step back and let someone else lead. No other institution in the world expects their heads (not even a figurehead, but the person who is supposed to be in control) to serve on their deathbed.
Yes one of his tasks is to set a good example for the believers of his faith. Where I disagree completely with what you have said is that he is "just" quitting. He served for 7 years at an age where almost everyone else just wants to sit back and spend time with their grandchildren. Frankly that must be enough.
You said it yourself right there. He was dying and he still stood at the head of Christian Church, giving his last breath for what he stood for and showed true example of a great believer and faith in our Lord.
I'm guessing he also knew what was going to happen to him and he could have chosen easier path and just live the last days with his family or the closest ones but he didn't. He died gracefully in his faith and didn't broke 600 years old tradition of ones before him.
He can still die a good Christian, and die believing the same way he lived his whole life. The problem is that as an invalid he should have (and did) relinquished that power to someone who he feels, or the Cardinals feel since they're voting for the new Pope, a better candidate to lead, reform, and maintain the integrity of the Catholic Church.
John Paul II should have realized when enough was enough and given up his mantle to Benedict or someone else. He would be taking the easier path but he would also be taking the more responsible path because he would know he is no longer fit for the taxing duties of the papacy.
On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote: I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health.
Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions..
yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
Maybe it wasn't his own volition which made him join. But still, as a non-Christian I thought that John Paul was an amazing representative for the Vatican and even if you disagreed with almost everything the Church stands for he was still an incredibly likable and charismatic individual. My opinion is simply that the Pope isnt really renowned for "brain power". He's a figure head, he's a symbol, a political item, not a thinker. It doesnt really matter if it was his choice or not, the fact is he was a Hitler Youth.
Please try to not make it sound like being a Hitler-Youth = Evil person. A lot of Germans were members of the nazi party as well because you kind of had to
Seriously, now you're just being silly. A lot of Germans were members of the Nazi party because they agreed with its "ideals" and it provided them with benefits. The majority of the German society supported Hitler.
On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote: I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health.
Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions..
yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
Maybe it wasn't his own volition which made him join. But still, as a non-Christian I thought that John Paul was an amazing representative for the Vatican and even if you disagreed with almost everything the Church stands for he was still an incredibly likable and charismatic individual. My opinion is simply that the Pope isnt really renowned for "brain power". He's a figure head, he's a symbol, a political item, not a thinker. It doesnt really matter if it was his choice or not, the fact is he was a Hitler Youth.
Please try to not make it sound like being a Hitler-Youth = Evil person. A lot of Germans were members of the nazi party as well because you kind of had to
Seriously, now you're just being silly. A lot of Germans were members of the Nazi party because they agreed with its "ideals" and it provided them with benefits. The majority of the German society supported Hitler.
It's generally agreed that he didn't really want to, and wasn't enthusiastic in his tenure there.
Following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was conscripted into the Hitler Youth—as membership was required by law for all 14-year-old German boys after December 1939[13]—but was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings, according to his brother.[14] In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was taken away by the Nazi regime and murdered during the Action T4 campaign of Nazi eugenics.[15] In 1943, while still in seminary, he was drafted into the German anti-aircraft corps as Luftwaffenhelfer (air force child soldier).[14] Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry.[16] As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted back to his family's home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established their headquarters in the Ratzinger household.[17] As a German soldier, he was put in a POW camp but was released a few months later at the end of the war in the summer of 1945.[17] He reentered the seminary, along with his brother Georg, in November of that year.
On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote: I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health.
Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions..
yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
Maybe it wasn't his own volition which made him join. But still, as a non-Christian I thought that John Paul was an amazing representative for the Vatican and even if you disagreed with almost everything the Church stands for he was still an incredibly likable and charismatic individual. My opinion is simply that the Pope isnt really renowned for "brain power". He's a figure head, he's a symbol, a political item, not a thinker. It doesnt really matter if it was his choice or not, the fact is he was a Hitler Youth.
Please try to not make it sound like being a Hitler-Youth = Evil person. A lot of Germans were members of the nazi party as well because you kind of had to
Seriously, now you're just being silly. A lot of Germans were members of the Nazi party because they agreed with its "ideals" and it provided them with benefits. The majority of the German society supported Hitler.
This is factually false.
Hitler never got a majority in parliament(at most 40%~ might have been closer to 45%) and mostly bullied Germans into line when he was in power, do not make untrue comments that other could take offence to please (i don't but a lot of others could)
On February 12 2013 05:25 IceCube wrote: For me his move is a sign of weakness. Any leader Christian or not after abandoning his post is found either weak or not worthy at the first place.
I'm a Christian and I do believe in God and this is my honest opinion of the matter at hand.
That's the entire point.......Benedict considered himself too weak to maintain his position as head of the Church, therefore he stepped down. He is 85 ya know.
You are right and that's the whole point, but what I meant was that he should set an example in his faith to all of us, the followers, in my eyes that's one of the main quests for a good leader. So now when we are in a hard spot (old, depressed, hungry...whatever, should we all just quit?)
Errrrrrr what?
Seriously?
We just (as in not 10 years ago) had a pope who literally could do nothing in the last 2 years of his reign and you want to go back to that?
Frankly it is a sign of moral fiber to recognise that it is time to take a step back and let someone else lead. No other institution in the world expects their heads (not even a figurehead, but the person who is supposed to be in control) to serve on their deathbed.
Yes one of his tasks is to set a good example for the believers of his faith. Where I disagree completely with what you have said is that he is "just" quitting. He served for 7 years at an age where almost everyone else just wants to sit back and spend time with their grandchildren. Frankly that must be enough.
You said it yourself right there. He was dying and he still stood at the head of Christian Church, giving his last breath for what he stood for and showed true example of a great believer and faith in our Lord.
I'm guessing he also knew what was going to happen to him and he could have chosen easier path and just live the last days with his family or the closest ones but he didn't. He died gracefully in his faith and didn't broke 600 years old tradition of ones before him.
But... he wasn't "standing at the head" of the church. He was effectively removed from office (not entirely, but to a large degree) and unable to fully fulfill the duties of his position.
This has nothing to do with his degree of faith or devotion, it's a simple recognition of no longer being fully able to perform his duties as pope. I had a difficult time grasping the idea that having a decrepit "leader" that can't actually do the job is a good thing.
On February 12 2013 05:25 IceCube wrote: For me his move is a sign of weakness. Any leader Christian or not after abandoning his post is found either weak or not worthy at the first place.
I'm a Christian and I do believe in God and this is my honest opinion of the matter at hand.
That's the entire point.......Benedict considered himself too weak to maintain his position as head of the Church, therefore he stepped down. He is 85 ya know.
You are right and that's the whole point, but what I meant was that he should set an example in his faith to all of us, the followers, in my eyes that's one of the main quests for a good leader. So now when we are in a hard spot (old, depressed, hungry...whatever, should we all just quit?)
Errrrrrr what?
Seriously?
We just (as in not 10 years ago) had a pope who literally could do nothing in the last 2 years of his reign and you want to go back to that?
Frankly it is a sign of moral fiber to recognise that it is time to take a step back and let someone else lead. No other institution in the world expects their heads (not even a figurehead, but the person who is supposed to be in control) to serve on their deathbed.
Yes one of his tasks is to set a good example for the believers of his faith. Where I disagree completely with what you have said is that he is "just" quitting. He served for 7 years at an age where almost everyone else just wants to sit back and spend time with their grandchildren. Frankly that must be enough.
You said it yourself right there. He was dying and he still stood at the head of Christian Church, giving his last breath for what he stood for and showed true example of a great believer and faith in our Lord.
I'm guessing he also knew what was going to happen to him and he could have chosen easier path and just live the last days with his family or the closest ones but he didn't. He died gracefully in his faith and didn't broke 600 years old tradition of ones before him.
But... he wasn't "standing at the head" of the church. He was effectively removed from office (not entirely, but to a large degree) and unable to fully fulfill the duties of his position.
This has nothing to do with his degree of faith or devotion, it's a simple recognition of no longer being fully able to perform his duties as pope. I had a difficult time grasping the idea that having a decrepit "leader" that can't actually do the job is a good thing.
Agreed. Such leaders is how the Soviet Union (almost) fell apart as well, although huge amounts of reform in short amounts of time is what dealt the killing blow.
So maybe a moderate pope is what we should be looking for.
60% of the world's Catholics reside in North and South America, and most of the 'growth' in new converts is happening in the Third World. It would make more sense to get a pontiff from one of those two regions, as opposed to yet another European Pope.
On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote: I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health.
Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions..
yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
Maybe it wasn't his own volition which made him join. But still, as a non-Christian I thought that John Paul was an amazing representative for the Vatican and even if you disagreed with almost everything the Church stands for he was still an incredibly likable and charismatic individual. My opinion is simply that the Pope isnt really renowned for "brain power". He's a figure head, he's a symbol, a political item, not a thinker. It doesnt really matter if it was his choice or not, the fact is he was a Hitler Youth.
Please try to not make it sound like being a Hitler-Youth = Evil person. A lot of Germans were members of the nazi party as well because you kind of had to
Seriously, now you're just being silly. A lot of Germans were members of the Nazi party because they agreed with its "ideals" and it provided them with benefits. The majority of the German society supported Hitler.
This is factually false.
Hitler never got a majority in parliament(at most 40%~ might have been closer to 45%) and mostly bullied Germans into line when he was in power, do not make untrue comments that other could take offence to please (i don't but a lot of others could)
You're implying that the number of his supporters after he took over the country did not grow. This is factually false. He was emanating power, he made Germany raise from the knees after the Treaty of Versailles, that they felt had humiliated them. He rebuilt the country, lowered the unemployment rate, improved the industry, and so on. You should watch some documentaries or read history books. Germans did love him, certainly the majority did.
The numbers are still skewed since the Germans that didn't for whatever reason, were probably shot, silenced in some way, or just not shown in public broadcastings.
"membership was required by law for all 14-year-old German boys after December 1939" from that Wikipedia article on the pope. I'm not arguing that Hitler wasn't popular or people didn't believe him and his ideology, but the numbers do have the possibility of favoring Hitler too much, and the whole point of the Hitler Youth was to actually indoctrinate the children, no matter what their beliefs were before that point.
On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote: I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health.
Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions..
yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
Maybe it wasn't his own volition which made him join. But still, as a non-Christian I thought that John Paul was an amazing representative for the Vatican and even if you disagreed with almost everything the Church stands for he was still an incredibly likable and charismatic individual. My opinion is simply that the Pope isnt really renowned for "brain power". He's a figure head, he's a symbol, a political item, not a thinker. It doesnt really matter if it was his choice or not, the fact is he was a Hitler Youth.
Please try to not make it sound like being a Hitler-Youth = Evil person. A lot of Germans were members of the nazi party as well because you kind of had to
Seriously, now you're just being silly. A lot of Germans were members of the Nazi party because they agreed with its "ideals" and it provided them with benefits. The majority of the German society supported Hitler.
This is factually false.
Hitler never got a majority in parliament(at most 40%~ might have been closer to 45%) and mostly bullied Germans into line when he was in power, do not make untrue comments that other could take offence to please (i don't but a lot of others could)
You're implying that the number of his supporters after he took over the country did not grow. This is factually false. He was emanating power, he made Germany raise from the knees after the Treaty of Versailles, that they felt had humiliated them. He rebuilt the country, lowered the unemployment rate, improved the industry, and so on. You should watch some documentaries or read history books. Germans did love him, certainly the majority did.
So you should have defined the year/era of which you spoke. You're kinda both right I guess. I think numbers and enthusiasm definitely grew from 1933 to 1939, but you have to consider that until he got the power, most people in germany were against him. Even at the edge of war, some people were against him but had to remain silent or had just left the country before(if they were able to).
I don't know where in Christianity's doctrine a title like the pope is given.No where in reading the bible have I ever come across, titles like priest and pope. As a theist IMO these guys need to get real jobs. And stop feeding themselves off people's beliefs.
On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote: I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health.
Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions..
yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
Maybe it wasn't his own volition which made him join. But still, as a non-Christian I thought that John Paul was an amazing representative for the Vatican and even if you disagreed with almost everything the Church stands for he was still an incredibly likable and charismatic individual. My opinion is simply that the Pope isnt really renowned for "brain power". He's a figure head, he's a symbol, a political item, not a thinker. It doesnt really matter if it was his choice or not, the fact is he was a Hitler Youth.
Please try to not make it sound like being a Hitler-Youth = Evil person. A lot of Germans were members of the nazi party as well because you kind of had to
I'm just saying if you are looking for a figure head for your organization and one of your principle goals is to indoctrinate as many people around the world (in fact they want EVERYONE to be catholic) as possible, then someone with a history in the Hilter Youth, BY CHOICE OR FORCED, isn't exactly your best bet. I'm sorry if it was completely out of his control, but the fact still stands that he was a member.
On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote: I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health.
Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions..
yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
Maybe it wasn't his own volition which made him join. But still, as a non-Christian I thought that John Paul was an amazing representative for the Vatican and even if you disagreed with almost everything the Church stands for he was still an incredibly likable and charismatic individual. My opinion is simply that the Pope isnt really renowned for "brain power". He's a figure head, he's a symbol, a political item, not a thinker. It doesnt really matter if it was his choice or not, the fact is he was a Hitler Youth.
Please try to not make it sound like being a Hitler-Youth = Evil person. A lot of Germans were members of the nazi party as well because you kind of had to
I'm just saying if you are looking for a figure head for your organization and one of your principle goals is to indoctrinate as many people around the world (in fact they want EVERYONE to be catholic) as possible, then someone with a history in the Hilter Youth, BY CHOICE OR FORCED, isn't exactly your best bet. I'm sorry if it was completely out of his control, but the fact still stands that he was a member.
His unique history in the Hitler Youth actually paints him as a pacifist who reluctantly served so he wouldn't be shot or imprisoned, and the fact that he went back to church right after he got released from the POW camp adds to it immensely.
On February 12 2013 06:35 KingAce wrote: I don't know where in Christianity's doctrine a title like the pope is given.No where in reading the bible have I ever come across, titles like priest and pope. As a theist IMO these guys need to get real jobs. And stop feeding themselves off people's beliefs.
The Pope thing got kinda out of hand between St. Peter and the split between Catholicism and Orthodoxy in those thousand years. Matthew 16:19 "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." I think the papacy took this command a bit too far around the 1000s, which made it seem like the Pope was the arbiter of everyone on Earth and God manifested all his power to him.
Although the only real pay that the pope receives is his living place in the Vatican, food, medical care, clothes, and other necessities like that. Kings and other heads of state get luxuries and plenty of money to spend; the Pope doesn't. Given that he works seven days a week for long hours and the average pope dies in six years from all the stress of the job, I don't think any old bishop would do it just for the power.
When Pope Benedict was elected I think it was a shock to a lot of progressive Catholic youths like myself because Pope John Paul the second was such an amazingly progressive figure. If the 70s could bring about the first Polish pope who also has the most progressive views on sin and sinners the church has ever seen then surely we can do better in the 2000s right?
Basically all i remember hearing from Benedict's reign was consistent doubling down on doctrine, the divisive nature of which no doubt making an already difficult job near unbearable.
I agree with the man on basically nothing but I respect the gravity of his role as vicar of Christ. I look forward to what a younger perspective could offer the office.
On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote: I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health.
Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions..
yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
Maybe it wasn't his own volition which made him join. But still, as a non-Christian I thought that John Paul was an amazing representative for the Vatican and even if you disagreed with almost everything the Church stands for he was still an incredibly likable and charismatic individual. My opinion is simply that the Pope isnt really renowned for "brain power". He's a figure head, he's a symbol, a political item, not a thinker. It doesnt really matter if it was his choice or not, the fact is he was a Hitler Youth.
Please try to not make it sound like being a Hitler-Youth = Evil person. A lot of Germans were members of the nazi party as well because you kind of had to
I'm just saying if you are looking for a figure head for your organization and one of your principle goals is to indoctrinate as many people around the world (in fact they want EVERYONE to be catholic) as possible, then someone with a history in the Hilter Youth, BY CHOICE OR FORCED, isn't exactly your best bet. I'm sorry if it was completely out of his control, but the fact still stands that he was a member.
He was not given a joice and he was 14. 14 is too young to hold something like that against him.
On February 12 2013 06:35 KingAce wrote: I don't know where in Christianity's doctrine a title like the pope is given.No where in reading the bible have I ever come across, titles like priest and pope. As a theist IMO these guys need to get real jobs. And stop feeding themselves off people's beliefs.
Pope just comes from the Greek word for Father. So it's just a familiar or kind name given to him. His official titles are Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, etc.
Next, the Old Testament has priests all over the place. From Melchizedek to the Levite priests. If there are priests in the old covenant then there are priests in the new. Hebrews 7 talks extensively about priesthood and there are many more references.
On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote: I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health.
Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions..
yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
Maybe it wasn't his own volition which made him join. But still, as a non-Christian I thought that John Paul was an amazing representative for the Vatican and even if you disagreed with almost everything the Church stands for he was still an incredibly likable and charismatic individual. My opinion is simply that the Pope isnt really renowned for "brain power". He's a figure head, he's a symbol, a political item, not a thinker. It doesnt really matter if it was his choice or not, the fact is he was a Hitler Youth.
Please try to not make it sound like being a Hitler-Youth = Evil person. A lot of Germans were members of the nazi party as well because you kind of had to
I'm just saying if you are looking for a figure head for your organization and one of your principle goals is to indoctrinate as many people around the world (in fact they want EVERYONE to be catholic) as possible, then someone with a history in the Hilter Youth, BY CHOICE OR FORCED, isn't exactly your best bet. I'm sorry if it was completely out of his control, but the fact still stands that he was a member.
You are beating a dead horse into the ground. As has already been quoted he did not have a choice regarding the Hitler Youth. Far more relevant is what he did as a person during the last 60 years. Personally i disagree with quite a few things he did, said or thought and blame him for quite a few problems the catholic church has, but in no way shape or form do I think he has anything to do with facist or NS ideology.
Frankly give up this idiotic argument and attack him for his policies if you must, but as numerous other people have said, if you were 14 years or older you had absolutly no choice in the Third Reich. If he had been a few years older he would have had to join the military as well and i wouldn't blame him for that either.
(Personal note, my grandfather who was jewish had to join the hitler Youth for 2 years before he got deported in 1943, hopefully you will now understand why i find your position idiotic at best, if not outright offensive).
On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote: I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health.
Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions..
yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
Maybe it wasn't his own volition which made him join. But still, as a non-Christian I thought that John Paul was an amazing representative for the Vatican and even if you disagreed with almost everything the Church stands for he was still an incredibly likable and charismatic individual. My opinion is simply that the Pope isnt really renowned for "brain power". He's a figure head, he's a symbol, a political item, not a thinker. It doesnt really matter if it was his choice or not, the fact is he was a Hitler Youth.
Please try to not make it sound like being a Hitler-Youth = Evil person. A lot of Germans were members of the nazi party as well because you kind of had to
I'm just saying if you are looking for a figure head for your organization and one of your principle goals is to indoctrinate as many people around the world (in fact they want EVERYONE to be catholic) as possible, then someone with a history in the Hilter Youth, BY CHOICE OR FORCED, isn't exactly your best bet. I'm sorry if it was completely out of his control, but the fact still stands that he was a member.
You are beating a dead horse into the ground. As has already been quoted he did not have a choice regarding the Hitler Youth. Far more relevant is what he did as a person during the last 60 years. Personally i disagree with quite a few things he did, said or thought and blame him for quite a few problems the catholic church has, but in no way shape or form do I think he has anything to do with facist or NS ideology.
Frankly give up this idiotic argument and attack him for his policies if you must, but as numerous other people have said, if you were 14 years or older you had absolutly no choice in the Third Reich. If he had been a few years older he would have had to join the military as well and i wouldn't blame him for that either.
(Personal note, my grandfather who was jewish had to join the hitler Youth for 2 years before he got deported in 1943, hopefully you will now understand why i find your position idiotic at best, if not outright offensive).
Actually according to wikipedia he had to join the army a few month before Hitler died and deserted after Hitlers death.
On February 12 2013 06:35 KingAce wrote: I don't know where in Christianity's doctrine a title like the pope is given.No where in reading the bible have I ever come across, titles like priest and pope. As a theist IMO these guys need to get real jobs. And stop feeding themselves off people's beliefs.
Pope just comes from the Greek word for Father. So it's just a familiar or kind name given to him. His official titles are Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, etc.
Next, the Old Testament has priests all over the place. From Melchizedek to the Levite priests. If there are priests in the old covenant then there are priests in the new. Hebrews 7 talks extensively about priesthood and there are many more references.
You have not read Scripture very well.
Actually, I think his comment is right on target. In old, lame, feudal Europe they had modified versions of the Bible and the Pope was god's right man, infallible(incapable of sin) and holy himself.
Although the papacy has had to tone down it's ridiculous claims of religious power because governments now have more power than it(thank god), the concept of the pope according to anyone who just reads the bible is at worst frivolous and at best something you can have I guess if you want.
Pope has way too much import. Should get real jobs instead of being some pseudo president of religion. That's why I think the new pope should be young and as progressive as the religion allows, since thats the best thing the position can do.
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.
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.
I don't think a Pope from South America or Africa would be any more liberal.
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.
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.
I don't think a Pope from South America or Africa would be any more liberal.
From my understanding they are actually much more conservative.
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.
On February 12 2013 01:59 Skilledblob wrote: catholic church cannot change and will not change. Actually it must not change in order to uphold their dogmas.
Surely; therefore Aquinas, Counter-Reformation, and Vatican II.
Whaaaaaat. I find it really hard to believe that he would resign from health issues.
Look at the three other popes in history (unashamed use of wikipedia) who resigned: one because of a deal w/ the Avignon papacy, one who resigned then decided to come back, one was forced into being pope before ditching the job, and a couple others.
All of them more than 600 years ago. I'm alright with Benedict (apart from the entire looking like Palpatine thing, but that's not his fault). He's not progressive, but he's been trying to build bridges.
On February 12 2013 06:40 Velocirapture wrote: When Pope Benedict was elected I think it was a shock to a lot of progressive Catholic youths like myself because Pope John Paul the second was such an amazingly progressive figure. If the 70s could bring about the first Polish pope who also has the most progressive views on sin and sinners the church has ever seen then surely we can do better in the 2000s right?
Basically all i remember hearing from Benedict's reign was consistent doubling down on doctrine, the divisive nature of which no doubt making an already difficult job near unbearable.
I agree with the man on basically nothing but I respect the gravity of his role as vicar of Christ. I look forward to what a younger perspective could offer the office.
I'm sorry, but I don't think there where many differences between John Paul and Benedict beside looks. It was John Paul who brought Ratzinger to Rome and made him for 20 years one of the most influential persons in the vatican. It was also John Paul who didn't accept Ratzingers resignation 3 years before John Paul's death. Ratzinger forced always John Paul politics before he became pope himself.
Beside that, I'm really not a fan of catholic church or Benedict's positions but I think they are much more complex as in this thread stated.
I'm just praying that we get someone progressive. It's a super long shot, but I guess it's not impossible. There are too many stupid, backward positions that the CC holds these days (contraception, homosexuality, female priests etc.) that frankly don't make any sense and need to be discussed, at the very least. I'm hoping we at least get someone who's open to discussing them, rather than simply restating Aristotelian precepts that nobody even holds anymore.
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.
Shrinking in educated areas and growing rapidly in areas of poverty and illiteracy....
he shouldnt have stepped down i think it sends a different, contradictory message to the people. maybe it means even the conservative religious are becoming rational in terms of someone's health and what needs to be done, instead of letting god do what he wills. shouldn't a pope's proper action be "god, i will do whatever it is that you ask of me, through happiness or pain, whatever it takes" but "i'm getting too tired/sick, i can't do this anymore" doesnt seem like the mindset of a deeply religious person.
Lol 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.
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.
Lol 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...
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.
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.
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 08:16 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.
Lol 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.
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.
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.
Lol 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.
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 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 08:16 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.
Lol 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.
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.
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 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 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 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 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)
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.
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.
Please tell me you're not referring to the whole "Mussolini's Millions" thing? A substantial portion of the Vatican's economy is donations.
I'm not exactly sure where you're getting morally bankrupt from. I won't disagree that the Church is too stingy with its funds, but by this logic every country should have sold all their marketable stocks to funnel money into charity, which is only realistic if you're the most extreme sort of communist.
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.
Please tell me you're not referring to the whole "Mussolini's Millions" thing? A substantial portion of the Vatican's economy is donations.
I'm not exactly sure where you're getting morally bankrupt from. I won't disagree that the Church is too stingy with its funds, but by this logic every country should have sold all their marketable stocks to funnel money into charity, which is only realistic if you're the most extreme sort of communist.
I don't believe so. The Vatican has always owned a lot of stuff all over Europe. In Italy alone (not talking about the Vatican, in Italy) it has $12b of commercial and residential property, all of which they claim tax exempt status on.
Most countries don't tax their people to increase the big pot of money they're sitting on. They tax the people to buy stuff to do the things the people elected them to do. The government of a normal country giving all its tax revenue to charity would be breaking the social contract and failing to do what it was elected to do. The Vatican is accountable only to their own consciences so they can do however they please and what they choose to do is dodge taxes and hoard. Again, not Christians in general who are charitable people, I'm talking about the institution of the Vatican.
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.
Please tell me you're not referring to the whole "Mussolini's Millions" thing?
I don't believe so. The Vatican has always owned a lot of stuff all over Europe. In Italy alone it has $12b of commercial and residential property, all of which they claim tax exempt status on.
That's absolutely insane. Seriously? I can't believe people let that fly. That is an insane amount of money.
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.
Please tell me you're not referring to the whole "Mussolini's Millions" thing? A substantial portion of the Vatican's economy is donations.
I'm not exactly sure where you're getting morally bankrupt from. I won't disagree that the Church is too stingy with its funds, but by this logic every country should have sold all their marketable stocks to funnel money into charity, which is only realistic if you're the most extreme sort of communist.
I don't believe so. The Vatican has always owned a lot of stuff all over Europe. In Italy alone it has $12b of commercial and residential property, all of which they claim tax exempt status on.
Most countries don't tax their people to increase the big pot of money they're sitting on. They tax the people to buy stuff to do the things the people elected them to do. The government of a normal country giving all its tax revenue to charity would be breaking the social contract and failing to do what it was elected to do. The Vatican is accountable only to their own consciences so they can do however they please and what they choose to do is dodge taxes and hoard.
The Vatican doesn't tax its citizens. They also no longer have tax exempt status on their commercial properties, to my knowledge.
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.
Please tell me you're not referring to the whole "Mussolini's Millions" thing? A substantial portion of the Vatican's economy is donations.
I'm not exactly sure where you're getting morally bankrupt from. I won't disagree that the Church is too stingy with its funds, but by this logic every country should have sold all their marketable stocks to funnel money into charity, which is only realistic if you're the most extreme sort of communist.
I don't believe so. The Vatican has always owned a lot of stuff all over Europe. In Italy alone it has $12b of commercial and residential property, all of which they claim tax exempt status on.
Most countries don't tax their people to increase the big pot of money they're sitting on. They tax the people to buy stuff to do the things the people elected them to do. The government of a normal country giving all its tax revenue to charity would be breaking the social contract and failing to do what it was elected to do. The Vatican is accountable only to their own consciences so they can do however they please and what they choose to do is dodge taxes and hoard.
The Vatican doesn't tax its citizens.
I don't see your point. You suggested that the Vatican was no different from any other country because all governments attempt to raise money and none spend it all on feeding the hungry. I pointed out that most governments (basically any except states being ransacked by a warlord before he goes into exile) raise money to spend on the business of running the country and don't generally operate at much of a profit whereas the Vatican works much more like an investment portfolio and do make profits. Furthermore in a democratic state using funds levied from the people in a way they would not want breaks the social contract but the Vatican, which does not tax people, has no such restraints. Therefore your suggestion that the Vatican is not uniquely morally bankrupt because other countries don't spend their entire revenue on feeding Africa is nonsensical.
There have been attempts in the last 12 months to change the tax exempt status of the Vatican's investment portfolios in Italy but it's not done yet and, like any other big business, it is being fought by their influential lobbyists while their accountants hide as much money.
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.
Even if that were the case (and you have to provide sources and deal with issues where money is spent/to be spent on constructing more monuments and places of worship which worshipers generally VERY MUCH are in favor of), all this would amount to an ad hominem argument. One can easily offer up liberal arguments regardless of their finances.
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.
Please tell me you're not referring to the whole "Mussolini's Millions" thing? A substantial portion of the Vatican's economy is donations.
I'm not exactly sure where you're getting morally bankrupt from. I won't disagree that the Church is too stingy with its funds, but by this logic every country should have sold all their marketable stocks to funnel money into charity, which is only realistic if you're the most extreme sort of communist.
I don't believe so. The Vatican has always owned a lot of stuff all over Europe. In Italy alone it has $12b of commercial and residential property, all of which they claim tax exempt status on.
Most countries don't tax their people to increase the big pot of money they're sitting on. They tax the people to buy stuff to do the things the people elected them to do. The government of a normal country giving all its tax revenue to charity would be breaking the social contract and failing to do what it was elected to do. The Vatican is accountable only to their own consciences so they can do however they please and what they choose to do is dodge taxes and hoard.
The Vatican doesn't tax its citizens.
I don't see your point. You suggested that the Vatican was no different from any other country because all governments attempt to raise money and none spend it all on feeding the hungry. I pointed out that most governments (basically any except states being ransacked by a warlord before he goes into exile) raise money to spend on the business of running the country and don't generally operate at much of a profit whereas the Vatican works much more like an investment portfolio and do make profits. Furthermore in a democratic state using funds levied from the people in a way they would not want breaks the social contract but the Vatican, which does not tax people, has no such restraints. Therefore your suggestion that the Vatican is not uniquely morally bankrupt because other countries don't spend their entire revenue on feeding Africa is nonsensical.
There have been attempts in the last 12 months to change the tax exempt status of the Vatican's investment portfolios in Italy but it's not done yet and, like any other big business, it is being fought by their influential lobbyists while their accountants hide as much money.
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.
Please tell me you're not referring to the whole "Mussolini's Millions" thing? A substantial portion of the Vatican's economy is donations.
I'm not exactly sure where you're getting morally bankrupt from. I won't disagree that the Church is too stingy with its funds, but by this logic every country should have sold all their marketable stocks to funnel money into charity, which is only realistic if you're the most extreme sort of communist.
I don't believe so. The Vatican has always owned a lot of stuff all over Europe. In Italy alone it has $12b of commercial and residential property, all of which they claim tax exempt status on.
Most countries don't tax their people to increase the big pot of money they're sitting on. They tax the people to buy stuff to do the things the people elected them to do. The government of a normal country giving all its tax revenue to charity would be breaking the social contract and failing to do what it was elected to do. The Vatican is accountable only to their own consciences so they can do however they please and what they choose to do is dodge taxes and hoard.
The Vatican doesn't tax its citizens.
I don't see your point. You suggested that the Vatican was no different from any other country because all governments attempt to raise money and none spend it all on feeding the hungry. I pointed out that most governments (basically any except states being ransacked by a warlord before he goes into exile) raise money to spend on the business of running the country and don't generally operate at much of a profit whereas the Vatican works much more like an investment portfolio and do make profits. Furthermore in a democratic state using funds levied from the people in a way they would not want breaks the social contract but the Vatican, which does not tax people, has no such restraints. Therefore your suggestion that the Vatican is not uniquely morally bankrupt because other countries don't spend their entire revenue on feeding Africa is nonsensical.
There have been attempts in the last 12 months to change the tax exempt status of the Vatican's investment portfolios in Italy but it's not done yet and, like any other big business, it is being fought by their influential lobbyists while their accountants hide as much money.
Editing my post out following the editing out of the one I was replying to in order to respect his wish to discontinue this line of discussion.
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.
Please tell me you're not referring to the whole "Mussolini's Millions" thing? A substantial portion of the Vatican's economy is donations.
I'm not exactly sure where you're getting morally bankrupt from. I won't disagree that the Church is too stingy with its funds, but by this logic every country should have sold all their marketable stocks to funnel money into charity, which is only realistic if you're the most extreme sort of communist.
I don't believe so. The Vatican has always owned a lot of stuff all over Europe. In Italy alone it has $12b of commercial and residential property, all of which they claim tax exempt status on.
Most countries don't tax their people to increase the big pot of money they're sitting on. They tax the people to buy stuff to do the things the people elected them to do. The government of a normal country giving all its tax revenue to charity would be breaking the social contract and failing to do what it was elected to do. The Vatican is accountable only to their own consciences so they can do however they please and what they choose to do is dodge taxes and hoard.
The Vatican doesn't tax its citizens.
I don't see your point. You suggested that the Vatican was no different from any other country because all governments attempt to raise money and none spend it all on feeding the hungry. I pointed out that most governments (basically any except states being ransacked by a warlord before he goes into exile) raise money to spend on the business of running the country and don't generally operate at much of a profit whereas the Vatican works much more like an investment portfolio and do make profits. Furthermore in a democratic state using funds levied from the people in a way they would not want breaks the social contract but the Vatican, which does not tax people, has no such restraints. Therefore your suggestion that the Vatican is not uniquely morally bankrupt because other countries don't spend their entire revenue on feeding Africa is nonsensical.
There have been attempts in the last 12 months to change the tax exempt status of the Vatican's investment portfolios in Italy but it's not done yet and, like any other big business, it is being fought by their influential lobbyists while their accountants hide as much money.
Well;The vatican is an independant state and has been so for a long time. So it can set its own taxes and to tax it for the whole of italy is maybe desirable but would just be theft from another country. There are more countrys wich have a big investment portfolio, like the gulf states,norway, probably swiss and luxembourg,or one of the tax heaven islands.That alone does not make them anny less of a state.
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.
Please tell me you're not referring to the whole "Mussolini's Millions" thing? A substantial portion of the Vatican's economy is donations.
I'm not exactly sure where you're getting morally bankrupt from. I won't disagree that the Church is too stingy with its funds, but by this logic every country should have sold all their marketable stocks to funnel money into charity, which is only realistic if you're the most extreme sort of communist.
I don't believe so. The Vatican has always owned a lot of stuff all over Europe. In Italy alone it has $12b of commercial and residential property, all of which they claim tax exempt status on.
Most countries don't tax their people to increase the big pot of money they're sitting on. They tax the people to buy stuff to do the things the people elected them to do. The government of a normal country giving all its tax revenue to charity would be breaking the social contract and failing to do what it was elected to do. The Vatican is accountable only to their own consciences so they can do however they please and what they choose to do is dodge taxes and hoard.
The Vatican doesn't tax its citizens.
I don't see your point. You suggested that the Vatican was no different from any other country because all governments attempt to raise money and none spend it all on feeding the hungry. I pointed out that most governments (basically any except states being ransacked by a warlord before he goes into exile) raise money to spend on the business of running the country and don't generally operate at much of a profit whereas the Vatican works much more like an investment portfolio and do make profits. Furthermore in a democratic state using funds levied from the people in a way they would not want breaks the social contract but the Vatican, which does not tax people, has no such restraints. Therefore your suggestion that the Vatican is not uniquely morally bankrupt because other countries don't spend their entire revenue on feeding Africa is nonsensical.
There have been attempts in the last 12 months to change the tax exempt status of the Vatican's investment portfolios in Italy but it's not done yet and, like any other big business, it is being fought by their influential lobbyists while their accountants hide as much money.
Well;The vatican is an independant state,and has be so for a long time.So it can set its own taxes and to tax it for the whole of italy is maybe desirable but would just be theft from another country. There are more countrys wich have a big investment portfolio, like the gulf states and probably swiss and luxembourg, That alone does not make them anny less of a state.
You're confused about what I meant. I'm not talking about properties within the Vatican which is obviously a separate nation and should not be taxed by Italy. I'm talking about how the Vatican owns about 20% of property in Italy and yet refuses to pay tax on the profits of their operations to the Italian government.
To bring this back to the initial topic of the discussion though, I think the suggestion that Benedict's criticism of investment bankers at the height of the economic crisis does not earn him any socialist credentials as he is the governor of one of the largest investment banks in the world. This topic isn't really the place to condemn him for that, rather just to show that his echoing of a global sentiment was not backed up by any action and does not amount to a change in the Vatican policy.
The Catholic Church owns hotels, restaurants, it even has had it's own banking scandals, several in fact. Whether a Pope is chosen from Ghana or Mexico makes no nevermind to the monetary discussion but rather the social arguments. Billions to Africa for education, safe sex practices, to drug violence. Or Condoms are sin etc.
I'ma go read up on the Vatican's properties and such before I get into that argument, but first:
I really do want to see a Pope Peter now. Just to see what happens with that prophecy. I could see the Cardinals playing along and choosing popes based on the description in each line of it, but some are too uncanny to be plotted in advance, like Pope JP2 dying on a solar eclipse (also being born on one), and the WW1 pope who was powerless to stop Christians from killing each other and Communism spreading in multiple Christian (and non-Christian, it never specified which religion was being destroyed) nations. Your mileage may vary I guess. But I still want to see a Pope Peter.
On February 12 2013 11:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The Catholic Church owns hotels, restaurants, it even has had it's own banking scandals, several in fact. Whether a Pope is chosen from Ghana or Mexico makes no nevermind to the monetary discussion but rather the social arguments. Billions to Africa for education, safe sex practices, to drug violence. Or Condoms are sin etc.
As I hear african priests tend to be more conservative. And currently a large part of the charity in africa is done by the caholic church. The protestants state churches here in Europ do everything people often mention they want see from a new pope. Their priests can marry, they ordinate women, allow condoms. The result is that they are shrinking rapidly. A new pope gains nothing from pleasing people who will never actually support the catholic church. If the catholic church wants to remain relevant it has to be separate from political power and separate from Zeitgeist influences.
The protestants state churches here in Europ do everything people often mention they want see from a new pope. Their priests can marry, they ordinate women, allow condoms. The result is that they are shrinking rapidly. A new pope gains nothing from pleasing people who will never actually support the catholic church.
I would say that's a general trend in Europe that includes Catholicism as well. In fact, last time I checked, the only religion in Europe that wasn't just losing ground but gaining ground was Islam.
On February 12 2013 11:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The Catholic Church owns hotels, restaurants, it even has had it's own banking scandals, several in fact. Whether a Pope is chosen from Ghana or Mexico makes no nevermind to the monetary discussion but rather the social arguments. Billions to Africa for education, safe sex practices, to drug violence. Or Condoms are sin etc.
As I hear african priests tend to be more conservative. And currently a large part of the charity in africa is done by the caholic church. The protestants state churches here in Europ do everything people often mention they want see from a new pope. Their priests can marry, they ordinate women, allow condoms. The result is that they are shrinking rapidly. A new pope gains nothing from pleasing people who will never actually support the catholic church. If the catholic church wants to remain relevant it has to be separate from political power and separate from Zeitgeist influences.
State churches as a whole have lost a great deal of standing among Protestants for a long while now. Kierkegaard's acute criticisms of the Danish Church was taken up with great fervor by Protestants post-WWI, most particularly with Barth and the Confessing Church in Germany against the German State Church that had become a wing of the Nazi machine. And the European trend has been towards a greater number of atheists and irreligious persons. It isn't confined to Protestantism or Catholicism but just a general decline of Christianity. To say that the Protestants are shrinking in Europe because of their progressive tendencies is really just hilariously wrong.
And good luck with the whole separation from political power idea when the Vatican is the single most political Christian organization in the world, and that hasn't changed for over a millennium. Even the Protestant Reformation didn't change that.
The protestants state churches here in Europ do everything people often mention they want see from a new pope. Their priests can marry, they ordinate women, allow condoms. The result is that they are shrinking rapidly. A new pope gains nothing from pleasing people who will never actually support the catholic church.
I would say that's a general trend in Europe that includes Catholicism as well. In fact, last time I checked, the only religion in Europe that wasn't just losing ground but gaining ground was Islam.
Ok, I looked the numbers up in wikipedia. In Germany both sides are loosing members equally fast. Here in Switzerland (where I live) the protestant shrink twice as fast. I cannot remember seeing a church grow that just does everything the way public opinion is. Here in switzerland most free churches that grow will cause some kind of public "panic" with "Sektenexperte" giving warnings, newspapers beeing shocked, etc...
So long story short: People here mentioned hat to stay relevant the new pope will have to take liberal stances, but in practice I have rarely seen a church getting more relevant by taking a more liberal stance.
P.S: I am not a catholic. The church I go to is the "salvation army" and the most influencial pastor for me would be Gregory Boyd. Both could be seen as somewhere in between liberal and conservative positions.
The protestants state churches here in Europ do everything people often mention they want see from a new pope. Their priests can marry, they ordinate women, allow condoms. The result is that they are shrinking rapidly. A new pope gains nothing from pleasing people who will never actually support the catholic church.
I would say that's a general trend in Europe that includes Catholicism as well. In fact, last time I checked, the only religion in Europe that wasn't just losing ground but gaining ground was Islam.
That isn't true. Christianity (Eastern and Western: Protestant and Catholic) is still growing in membership and adherents, but Islam is growing much faster. Part of that reason is because in the places where what we refer to as 'radicals' are spreading the religion by the sword, but that isn't what this topic is about.
The protestants state churches here in Europ do everything people often mention they want see from a new pope. Their priests can marry, they ordinate women, allow condoms. The result is that they are shrinking rapidly. A new pope gains nothing from pleasing people who will never actually support the catholic church.
I would say that's a general trend in Europe that includes Catholicism as well. In fact, last time I checked, the only religion in Europe that wasn't just losing ground but gaining ground was Islam.
That isn't true. Christianity (Eastern and Western: Protestant and Catholic) is still growing in membership and adherents, but Islam is growing much faster. Part of that reason is because in the places where what we refer to as 'radicals' are spreading the religion by the sword, but that isn't what this topic is about.
Inside Europe? I somehow doubt that - the only thing I could find was this:
The protestants state churches here in Europ do everything people often mention they want see from a new pope. Their priests can marry, they ordinate women, allow condoms. The result is that they are shrinking rapidly. A new pope gains nothing from pleasing people who will never actually support the catholic church.
I would say that's a general trend in Europe that includes Catholicism as well. In fact, last time I checked, the only religion in Europe that wasn't just losing ground but gaining ground was Islam.
That isn't true. Christianity (Eastern and Western: Protestant and Catholic) is still growing in membership and adherents, but Islam is growing much faster. Part of that reason is because in the places where what we refer to as 'radicals' are spreading the religion by the sword, but that isn't what this topic is about.
Inside Europe? I somehow doubt that - the only thing I could find was this:
I don't have any links ready to give you, but Gallup and Pew Research groups both operate in Europe and poll things along the lines of what you and I are talking about. If you'd like to look, you should be able to find something recent in either of those two places. Europe probably has some of their own polling and societal research groups that you should be able to check with as well, but I'm not aware of any.
The protestants state churches here in Europ do everything people often mention they want see from a new pope. Their priests can marry, they ordinate women, allow condoms. The result is that they are shrinking rapidly. A new pope gains nothing from pleasing people who will never actually support the catholic church.
I would say that's a general trend in Europe that includes Catholicism as well. In fact, last time I checked, the only religion in Europe that wasn't just losing ground but gaining ground was Islam.
That isn't true. Christianity (Eastern and Western: Protestant and Catholic) is still growing in membership and adherents, but Islam is growing much faster. Part of that reason is because in the places where what we refer to as 'radicals' are spreading the religion by the sword, but that isn't what this topic is about.
Inside Europe? I somehow doubt that - the only thing I could find was this:
I don't have any links ready to give you, but Gallup and Pew Research groups both operate in Europe and poll things along the lines of what you and I are talking about. If you'd like to look, you should be able to find something recent in either of those two places. Europe probably has some of their own polling and societal research groups that you should be able to check with as well, but I'm not aware of any.
The wiki article is based on Gallup which says that the numbers of christians (protestant and catholics) are dwindling in Europe.
I don´t know what the numbers are for other European countries but in the Netherlands the numbers are indeed dwindling VERY rapid. Churches closing left and right, almost no new people coming in and a lot of people dieing because well they are very old.
Also if I were a betting man my money for the new pope would be on eather Odilo Scherer (63), the Archbisshop of Sao Paolo or Peter Turkson (63) from Ghana with Luis Tagle (55) from the Phillipenes as an outsider. If there would have been a viable American candidate that would probably be a safe bet but I don´t see real contender amongst their cardinals.
On February 12 2013 18:58 Golden Ghost wrote: I don´t know what the numbers are for other European countries but in the Netherlands the numbers are indeed dwindling VERY rapid. Churches closing left and right, almost no new people coming in and a lot of people dieing because well they are very old.
Also if I were a betting man my money for the new pope would be on eather Odilo Scherer (63), the Archbisshop of Sao Paolo or Peter Turkson (63) from Ghana with Luis Tagle (55) from the Phillipenes as an outsider. If there would have been a viable American candidate that would probably be a safe bet but I don´t see real contender amongst their cardinals.
When was the last time that a pope was elected who was not a cardinal?
I know in medieval times they once elected a pope that was not even a priest.
Honestly not sure if it's been posted before but just saw that. I think it's a funny coincidence but it seems the Christians on my Facebook think otherwise..
On February 12 2013 18:58 Golden Ghost wrote: I don´t know what the numbers are for other European countries but in the Netherlands the numbers are indeed dwindling VERY rapid. Churches closing left and right, almost no new people coming in and a lot of people dieing because well they are very old.
Also if I were a betting man my money for the new pope would be on eather Odilo Scherer (63), the Archbisshop of Sao Paolo or Peter Turkson (63) from Ghana with Luis Tagle (55) from the Phillipenes as an outsider. If there would have been a viable American candidate that would probably be a safe bet but I don´t see real contender amongst their cardinals.
When was the last time that a pope was elected who was not a cardinal?
I know in medieval times they once elected a pope that was not even a priest.
I have no clue but all three persons I named are cardinals. You are never ONLY cardinal. You normally first become bisshop or archbisshop before being named cardinal. The only exception on this is if you have obtained a very influencial position in the church (VERY unusual without being a bisshop anyway but theoretically possible) but are already older as 80. It those cases you are made something resembling an honorary cardinal. Because of your age you then are not required to take on anymore burdons like a bisshop´s seat. No cardinal that is 80 or older can vote in the election of a new pope btw.
For a link to a list with all cardinals see one of my previous posts.
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...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
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...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
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...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
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 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...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
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.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Honestly not sure if it's been posted before but just saw that. I think it's a funny coincidence but it seems the Christians on my Facebook think otherwise..
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...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre 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. 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.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
It is crazy that he will be the first pope in like 600 years to step down before death, but I believe they will treat it like he died when he steps 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...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre 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. 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.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
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...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre 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. 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.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
But everyone here is implying that religion is politics
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...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre 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. 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.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Where did I mention politics in my post? Even though you are wrong, because Christianity is very much involved in the political compass, at least here in the United States, that's not what I am talking about at all. "Conservative" and "progressive" are pretty vague terms that apply to places other than just politics. A "progressive" approach to the Church could see them reform their opinions on gays, contraceptives, etc. but that doesn't mean the Pope has to declare himself a Democrat.
And actually, just because they oppose reform in the areas of contraceptives/premarital sex does mean they are on the opposite side of what I call "progressivism." That doesn't make it an objectively bad position, even if I don't agree with it, but it is factually a conservative position because that has always been their position on those issues.
Following their dogma/religious text to the letter is pretty much the definition of conservatism when it comes to religion, so I'm not really sure what argument you are trying to make here.
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...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre 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. 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.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
But everyone here is implying that religion is politics
Because politics is infested with religion. Conservative beliefs are thoroughly entwined with the church and have been throughout history, in part because of the wealth and power of the church which naturally led to opposition to any kind of change. Religion may not be political but people are political and religion is held by people.
Honestly not sure if it's been posted before but just saw that. I think it's a funny coincidence but it seems the Christians on my Facebook think otherwise..
Clearly Zeus is angry at him.
*Jupiter. It's Rome, not Greece!
On a more serious note, this (the whole situation, not the lightning bolt thing) is really bugging me, as I'm a catholic who recently reignited my faith. I feel like the church is in a place where we need a pope who can provide strong and highly visible leadership, especially with recent world events.
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...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre 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. 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.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
The main difference is that political systems are somewhat forced. What they did (giving away wealth) was done by free will, this is different to the political system of taxes as taxes are mandatory. Also the christians lived inside a state, their form of living was not replacing the state. For this reason I wouldn't assign a political direction to Jesus.
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...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre 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. 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.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
The main difference is that political systems are somewhat forced. What they did (giving away wealth) was done by free will, this is different to the political system of taxes as taxes are mandatory. Also the christians lived inside a state, their form of living was not replacing the state. For this reason I wouldn't assign a political direction to Jesus.
Many communists believe that proper communism could only ever be voluntary, anyhow.
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...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre 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. 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.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
But everyone here is implying that religion is politics
Because politics is infested with religion. Conservative beliefs are thoroughly entwined with the church and have been throughout history, in part because of the wealth and power of the church which naturally led to opposition to any kind of change. Religion may not be political but people are political and religion is held by people.
I think you're being a bit obtuse if you're only going to link conservatism with the church and say that it has been that way throughout history. There have been more than enough revolutionary religious movements in the West. In the Reformation days there was Muntzer and the Peasants' War, Post WWI there was the famous Religious Socialists group that included Martin Buber and Paul Tillich, and even the "neo-orthodox" Karl Barth was derided by American fundamentalists for being a socialist. Barth (in)famously stated that true Christianity would be socialist, and we're talking about the man who is almost unanimously considered to be the most influential and important theologian of the 20th century. He was a Protestant and yet Pius XII called him the most important theologian since Aquinas. These people aren't just wayward fringe figures.
Of course the churches have various failings. If there wasn't then liberation theology would have never came out of the Catholic church to criticize itself.
And as for those who are attempting to "de-politicize" Jesus of Nazareth, even if it may be true that Christ's central focus is not worldly politics (my kingdom is not of this world), he does make very explicit gestures that would fall flat on a certain political direction if we are to actually follow it instead of obscuring and veiling what he actually meant so that we can free ourselves from responsibility.
Was he now? There's a necessary component of both socialism and populism that is noticeably missing both from the words of Jesus and from the writings of the apostolic fathers.
Was he now? There's a necessary component of both socialism and populism that is noticeably missing both from the words of Jesus and from the writings of the apostolic fathers.
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...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre 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. 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.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
Yeah, Jesus was a socialist, if you want to hijack his teachings to advance socialism. And I'm unsure of calling him a populist as well, considering the people of his time sentenced him to death on a cross.
The sharing of possessions described in Acts were done voluntarily, and not done at gunpoint (or I suppose swordpoint) like "redistribution" of wealth is done today. Ananias and his wife were struck down for lying about having given up everything, not because they did not give up everything.
You only have to look at the fact that the teachings of Christ influenced Aquinas and schools of thought like the School of Salamanca and Austrian Economics. Whereas Socialism and Communism have been terribly hostile to Christianity and other religions, to the point of murdering millions. But when unsuccessful in eliminating the church from the outside, they began to subvert the church from within. Even though JPII was more liberal than BXVI, he opposed the radical liberation theology that was taking root in Latin America. And BXVI himself was a staunch opponent of liberation theology.
As far as I've understood, the church teaches that the rich should help the poor through the virtue of charity, not forced redistribution as socialism/communism desires.
That is not to say that American conservatives don't abuse the bible either. They'll be glad to say that God supports this or that military action, despite Jesus being the prince of peace. And just recently, a lot of Republicans got mad at a certain politician quoting Jesus' famous "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword" line.
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...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre 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. 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.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
Yeah, Jesus was a socialist, if you want to hijack his teachings to advance socialism. And I'm unsure of calling him a populist as well, considering the people of his time sentenced him to death on a cross.
The sharing of possessions described in Acts were done voluntarily, and not done at gunpoint (or I suppose swordpoint) like "redistribution" of wealth is done today. Ananias and his wife were struck down for lying about having given up everything, not because they did not give up everything.
You only have to look at the fact that the teachings of Christ influenced Aquinas and schools of thought like the School of Salamanca and Austrian Economics. Whereas Socialism and Communism have been terribly hostile to Christianity and other religions, to the point of murdering millions. But when unsuccessful in eliminating the church from the outside, they began to subvert the church from within. Even though JPII was more liberal than BXVI, he opposed the radical liberation theology that was taking root in Latin America. And BXVI himself was a staunch opponent of liberation theology.
As far as I've understood, the church teaches that the rich should help the poor through the virtue of charity, not forced redistribution as socialism/communism desires.
That is not to say that American conservatives don't abuse the bible either. They'll be glad to say that God supports this or that military action, despite Jesus being the prince of peace. And just recently, a lot of Republicans got mad at a certain politician quoting Jesus' famous "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword" line.
But Jesus a Socialist? I think not.
I don't doubt he'd be horrified by the violence and terror of Stalinism and so forth, nor do I believe that he advocated a coercive form of redistributive government. Just that he railed against greed and excessive wealth, promoted charity for the sake of kindness and promoted equality despite racial and class differences. The guys who actually knew him believed that the Christian community they were creating should be one in which the collective took responsibility for the care of its members according to their need and created a commune without private property.
It's hard to say where he would have stood on various historical and political issues but the actions of those who knew him and were directly influenced by his beliefs suggest that he fell somewhere near the Marxist ideal of a stateless commune in which everyone did everything for the common good with neither wealth nor coercion.
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...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre 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. 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.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
Yeah, Jesus was a socialist, if you want to hijack his teachings to advance socialism. And I'm unsure of calling him a populist as well, considering the people of his time sentenced him to death on a cross.
The sharing of possessions described in Acts were done voluntarily, and not done at gunpoint (or I suppose swordpoint) like "redistribution" of wealth is done today. Ananias and his wife were struck down for lying about having given up everything, not because they did not give up everything.
You only have to look at the fact that the teachings of Christ influenced Aquinas and schools of thought like the School of Salamanca and Austrian Economics. Whereas Socialism and Communism have been terribly hostile to Christianity and other religions, to the point of murdering millions. But when unsuccessful in eliminating the church from the outside, they began to subvert the church from within. Even though JPII was more liberal than BXVI, he opposed the radical liberation theology that was taking root in Latin America. And BXVI himself was a staunch opponent of liberation theology.
As far as I've understood, the church teaches that the rich should help the poor through the virtue of charity, not forced redistribution as socialism/communism desires.
That is not to say that American conservatives don't abuse the bible either. They'll be glad to say that God supports this or that military action, despite Jesus being the prince of peace. And just recently, a lot of Republicans got mad at a certain politician quoting Jesus' famous "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword" line.
But Jesus a Socialist? I think not.
I don't doubt he'd be horrified by the violence and terror of Stalinism and so forth, nor do I believe that he advocated a coercive form of redistributive government. Just that he railed against greed and excessive wealth, promoted charity for the sake of kindness and promoted equality despite racial and class differences. The guys who actually knew him believed that the Christian community they were creating should be one in which the collective took responsibility for the care of its members according to their need and created a commune without private property.
It's hard to say where he would have stood on various historical and political issues but the actions of those who knew him and were directly influenced by his beliefs suggest that he fell somewhere near the Marxist ideal of a stateless commune in which everyone did everything for the common good with neither wealth nor coercion.
Sure, but it's a stretch to sat from this that Jesus was a socialist. Jesus, while alive, even had rich friends that held property, for example, Joseph of Arimathea who provided Jesus his tomb. I don't recall Jesus ever telling them that they did not have a right to property while he was alive.
Their communal living did not even last, and the apostles went their separate ways to spread the gospel. In fact, when Paul went to see the Thessalonians, he found they had stopped working, sold their possessions and just shut themselves in to pray because they thought the world was going to end and Jesus was going to come back soon (sound familiar?) and had to convince them that they had to keep living life and get back to work rather than just leeching off fruit of the labor of others.
Again, there's nothing wrong with voluntarily communal living. But to say that because his followers shared their possessions implies that Jesus was a socialist, or that we should all be socialists, is a bit of a stretch.
On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote: [quote] 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...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre 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. 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.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
Yeah, Jesus was a socialist, if you want to hijack his teachings to advance socialism. And I'm unsure of calling him a populist as well, considering the people of his time sentenced him to death on a cross.
The sharing of possessions described in Acts were done voluntarily, and not done at gunpoint (or I suppose swordpoint) like "redistribution" of wealth is done today. Ananias and his wife were struck down for lying about having given up everything, not because they did not give up everything.
You only have to look at the fact that the teachings of Christ influenced Aquinas and schools of thought like the School of Salamanca and Austrian Economics. Whereas Socialism and Communism have been terribly hostile to Christianity and other religions, to the point of murdering millions. But when unsuccessful in eliminating the church from the outside, they began to subvert the church from within. Even though JPII was more liberal than BXVI, he opposed the radical liberation theology that was taking root in Latin America. And BXVI himself was a staunch opponent of liberation theology.
As far as I've understood, the church teaches that the rich should help the poor through the virtue of charity, not forced redistribution as socialism/communism desires.
That is not to say that American conservatives don't abuse the bible either. They'll be glad to say that God supports this or that military action, despite Jesus being the prince of peace. And just recently, a lot of Republicans got mad at a certain politician quoting Jesus' famous "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword" line.
But Jesus a Socialist? I think not.
I don't doubt he'd be horrified by the violence and terror of Stalinism and so forth, nor do I believe that he advocated a coercive form of redistributive government. Just that he railed against greed and excessive wealth, promoted charity for the sake of kindness and promoted equality despite racial and class differences. The guys who actually knew him believed that the Christian community they were creating should be one in which the collective took responsibility for the care of its members according to their need and created a commune without private property.
It's hard to say where he would have stood on various historical and political issues but the actions of those who knew him and were directly influenced by his beliefs suggest that he fell somewhere near the Marxist ideal of a stateless commune in which everyone did everything for the common good with neither wealth nor coercion.
Sure, but it's a stretch to sat from this that Jesus was a socialist. Jesus, while alive, even had rich friends that held property, for example, Joseph of Arimathea who provided Jesus his tomb. I don't recall Jesus ever telling them that they did not have a right to property while he was alive.
Their communal living did not even last, and the apostles went their separate ways to spread the gospel. In fact, when Paul went to see the Thessalonians, he found they had stopped working, sold their possessions and just shut themselves in to pray because they thought the world was going to end and Jesus was going to come back soon (sound familiar?) and had to convince them that they had to keep living life and get back to work rather than just leeching off fruit of the labor of others.
Again, there's nothing wrong with voluntarily communal living. But to say that because his followers shared their possessions implies that Jesus was a socialist, or that we should all be socialists, is a bit of a stretch.
I like the level of conversation here. Just one thing, please differentiate communism from socialism. Socialist do not deny the right to possessions and private property at all!
So the quoted text only argues that Jesus was not a communist.
Even then not in the political communist sense, nor in the historical class theory one. Rather that it suggests he believed in an ideal communal society without divisions based on race, class or wealth in which people did things for the common good of their neighbour and a fraternal ideal without expecting immediate reward. It's difficult sometimes to identify the meaning of the words we use because communism is refers to a political ideology, an economic belief, a historical narrative and a utopian stateless society. I believe his teachings and the actions of his followers imply that he argued for the communist utopian society, not the other stuff.
I didn't read the whole thread so this may have been mentioned before. I read that lightning struck the Vatican sometime after the Pope made his decision to retire. I find this very ironic and could be possibly a sign though I don't have nearly enough of information on the catholic church nor it's recent/past politics to make assertive statement, though it's still comical.
On February 13 2013 06:15 Mandalor28 wrote: I didn't read the whole thread so this may have been mentioned before. I read that lightning struck the Vatican sometime after the Pope made his decision to retire. I find this very ironic and could be possibly a sign though I don't have nearly enough of information on the catholic church nor it's recent/past politics to make assertive statement, though it's still comical.
You must admit, it's stylistically quite excellent.
On February 13 2013 06:15 Mandalor28 wrote: I didn't read the whole thread so this may have been mentioned before. I read that lightning struck the Vatican sometime after the Pope made his decision to retire. I find this very ironic and could be possibly a sign though I don't have nearly enough of information on the catholic church nor it's recent/past politics to make assertive statement, though it's still comical.
On February 13 2013 06:15 Mandalor28 wrote: I didn't read the whole thread so this may have been mentioned before. I read that lightning struck the Vatican sometime after the Pope made his decision to retire. I find this very ironic and could be possibly a sign though I don't have nearly enough of information on the catholic church nor it's recent/past politics to make assertive statement, though it's still comical.
It's a sign!
Makes me wonder if the Pope ever heard anything about the Palpatine comparisons... I think at least someone in his inner circle should be aware of it by now.
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...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre 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. 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.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
Yeah, Jesus was a socialist, if you want to hijack his teachings to advance socialism. And I'm unsure of calling him a populist as well, considering the people of his time sentenced him to death on a cross.
The sharing of possessions described in Acts were done voluntarily, and not done at gunpoint (or I suppose swordpoint) like "redistribution" of wealth is done today. Ananias and his wife were struck down for lying about having given up everything, not because they did not give up everything.
You only have to look at the fact that the teachings of Christ influenced Aquinas and schools of thought like the School of Salamanca and Austrian Economics. Whereas Socialism and Communism have been terribly hostile to Christianity and other religions, to the point of murdering millions. But when unsuccessful in eliminating the church from the outside, they began to subvert the church from within. Even though JPII was more liberal than BXVI, he opposed the radical liberation theology that was taking root in Latin America. And BXVI himself was a staunch opponent of liberation theology.
As far as I've understood, the church teaches that the rich should help the poor through the virtue of charity, not forced redistribution as socialism/communism desires.
That is not to say that American conservatives don't abuse the bible either. They'll be glad to say that God supports this or that military action, despite Jesus being the prince of peace. And just recently, a lot of Republicans got mad at a certain politician quoting Jesus' famous "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword" line.
But Jesus a Socialist? I think not.
Like it or not, Institutional Catholicism has a very strong socialist/social justice bent, in part because there is a very strong argument for the proposition that Jesus was a socialist/communist in the idealistic sense of the terms.
On February 13 2013 05:10 KwarK wrote: Even then not in the political communist sense, nor in the historical class theory one. Rather that it suggests he believed in an ideal communal society without divisions based on race, class or wealth in which people did things for the common good of their neighbour and a fraternal ideal without expecting immediate reward. It's difficult sometimes to identify the meaning of the words we use because communism is refers to a political ideology, an economic belief, a historical narrative and a utopian stateless society. I believe his teachings and the actions of his followers imply that he argued for the communist utopian society, not the other stuff.
The thing is, I don't think the actions of his followers were necessarily done for the purpose of creating a utopia through the means of egalitarianism. Jesus used the analogy of shepherd and his flock... these types of things doesn't really mesh well with a classless/egalitarian society. Hierarchies/classes even exist in heaven (archangels, cherubim, seraphim, etc), why would the expectation be different for flawed humans on imperfect earth? I think a distinction needs to made between equal and just. I think Jesus wanted people to live justly, if not necessarily equally. That's why it's wrong for a person to become wealthy through fraud or theft (injustice), but not necessarily wrong for a person to simply be wealthier than others (inequality).
Remember also, this arrangement was only a temporary thing, while Jesus was alive, his followers still had privately owned possessions and homes, and did so after his death as well. I'd argue that what they did was more in response to the incredible events that were happening around them, similar to how people these days will band together after a natural disaster or terrorist attack. Becoming more close knit and treating each other like family makes perfect sense when you're being forced into hiding due to the world around you seeking to persecute the "cult of Jesus".
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...
The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit
Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused.
see:
On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre 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. 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.
Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly.
Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism"
They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative"
You're like saying jesus christ is a republican.
Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share.
That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties.
Yeah, Jesus was a socialist, if you want to hijack his teachings to advance socialism. And I'm unsure of calling him a populist as well, considering the people of his time sentenced him to death on a cross.
The sharing of possessions described in Acts were done voluntarily, and not done at gunpoint (or I suppose swordpoint) like "redistribution" of wealth is done today. Ananias and his wife were struck down for lying about having given up everything, not because they did not give up everything.
You only have to look at the fact that the teachings of Christ influenced Aquinas and schools of thought like the School of Salamanca and Austrian Economics. Whereas Socialism and Communism have been terribly hostile to Christianity and other religions, to the point of murdering millions. But when unsuccessful in eliminating the church from the outside, they began to subvert the church from within. Even though JPII was more liberal than BXVI, he opposed the radical liberation theology that was taking root in Latin America. And BXVI himself was a staunch opponent of liberation theology.
As far as I've understood, the church teaches that the rich should help the poor through the virtue of charity, not forced redistribution as socialism/communism desires.
That is not to say that American conservatives don't abuse the bible either. They'll be glad to say that God supports this or that military action, despite Jesus being the prince of peace. And just recently, a lot of Republicans got mad at a certain politician quoting Jesus' famous "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword" line.
But Jesus a Socialist? I think not.
Like it or not, Institutional Catholicism has a very strong socialist/social justice bent, in part because there is a very strong argument for the proposition that Jesus was a socialist/communist in the idealistic sense of the terms.
Sure, if you disregard everything I said in what you quoted.
Apparently, he wasn't really resigning due to health issues. According to new sources, his resignation is now directly linked to the fact that he was trying to seek out immunity from prosecution from the Italian president for his abuse crimes. He allegedly stepped down as a result of this.
supposed note received by the Vatican from an undisclosed European government that stated that there are plans to issue a warrant for the Pope’s arrest.
thats a really bold claim, I wont believe it until I see confirmation.
On February 15 2013 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Apparently, he wasn't really resigning due to health issues. According to new sources, his resignation is now directly linked to the fact that he was trying to seek out immunity from prosecution from the Italian president for his abuse crimes. He allegedly stepped down as a result of this.
Not a very convincing story, how should he have been persecuted for anything. He is not living in italy but in the vatican. And if the source for this information was good, some larger newspaper would have wrote about it too.
Edit: The article is very young, we will see by tommorow if anybody has any proof for that.
See, that kind of nonsense can only really work if you utterly disregard the direct words of Christ in the gospels. Christ clearly says that if you truly want to follow him then you must sell all that you have and give it to the poor (Mt 19:21, Lk 18:22, Mk 10:21). The shepherd and flock imagery doesn't change anything because the shepherd is Christ, the Son of God, the second of the Trinity. The shepherd is never simply another human being. It's not as if the existence of social hierarchy isn't acknowledged either (give unto Caesar) - it is only that in essence, under God, all humans are equal regardless of the structures of society. Thus Christ ate with the poor, ate with the tax collectors, protected the prostitutes etc., because we are all sinners (throw the first stone).
Christianity is not synonymous with socialism or communism. Lets be clear about that. But lets also be clear that it is diametrical to capitalism as we know it.
edit: What kind of acrobatics would one have to engage in to explain away the eye of the needle?
On February 16 2013 00:27 koreasilver wrote: See, that kind of nonsense can only really work if you utterly disregard the direct words of Christ in the gospels. Christ clearly says that if you truly want to follow him then you must sell all that you have and give it to the poor (Mt 19:21, Lk 18:22, Mk 10:21). The shepherd and flock imagery doesn't change anything because the shepherd is Christ, the Son of God, the second of the Trinity. The shepherd is never simply another human being. It's not as if the existence of social hierarchy isn't acknowledged either (give unto Caesar) - it is only that in essence, under God, all humans are equal regardless of the structures of society. Thus Christ ate with the poor, ate with the tax collectors, protected the prostitutes etc., because we are all sinners (throw the first stone).
Christianity is not synonymous with socialism or communism. Lets be clear about that. But lets also be clear that it is diametrical to capitalism as we know it.
On February 15 2013 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Apparently, he wasn't really resigning due to health issues. According to new sources, his resignation is now directly linked to the fact that he was trying to seek out immunity from prosecution from the Italian president for his abuse crimes. He allegedly stepped down as a result of this.
You honestly need MUCH better proof. The Pope is the head of a foreign state, and Italy is supposed to be prosecuting him? Moreover, he's the leader of one of the world's dominant religions (Catholicism, not Christianity on a whole, before anyone gets mad). Trying to prosecute someone as high-up as him is worse than just an exercise in futility, it's political suicide. The better explanation is that Ratzinger had seen his predecessor slowly drift off into mental instability and realized it probably wasn't a good idea for him to stay Pope while going the same route.
And therefore: Christianity is not synonymous with any political system. I'm not disagreeing with you at all here, and Christ himself does not promote any kind of political system or a radical overthrowing of any political establishment, or anarchism (give unto Caesar). Now, the kind of ethic that Christ does promote might be very similar to some forms of socialism and it does have very radical implications. But it is not synonymous with socialism primarily around the fact that for Christ the main question is not the life that we live on this world in our societies (my kingdom is not of this world). Now, it is this fact that helps Christ push forward such radical things like selling all you have and giving it all away, "think not of the morrow", etc. But for socialism and Marxist thought as a whole, what matters is this world and perhaps it's also what only matters (if we go by a Marxist materialism). Perhaps the reason why Marxism can manifest in similar ways to a Christ-ian ethic is because Marxism is at its roots quasi-theological (Walter Benjamin), but I would be very wary of pursuing that point.
But the fact that the Gospels are really on the opposite to capitalism is so explicitly borne out by Christ that to say otherwise would involve a whole lot of intellectual acrobatics. It's just fraudulent.
change is the most essential attribute of life, what we call time is just another way of desribing the change or transition of different material states. how could a philosophy overcome this basic concept of "being" by ingoring this factum of universe?
On February 16 2013 00:27 koreasilver wrote: See, that kind of nonsense can only really work if you utterly disregard the direct words of Christ in the gospels. Christ clearly says that if you truly want to follow him then you must sell all that you have and give it to the poor (Mt 19:21, Lk 18:22, Mk 10:21). The shepherd and flock imagery doesn't change anything because the shepherd is Christ, the Son of God, the second of the Trinity. The shepherd is never simply another human being. It's not as if the existence of social hierarchy isn't acknowledged either (give unto Caesar) - it is only that in essence, under God, all humans are equal regardless of the structures of society. Thus Christ ate with the poor, ate with the tax collectors, protected the prostitutes etc., because we are all sinners (throw the first stone).
Christianity is not synonymous with socialism or communism. Lets be clear about that. But lets also be clear that it is diametrical to capitalism as we know it.
edit: What kind of acrobatics would one have to engage in to explain away the eye of the needle?
No, it's the kind of thinking you get when you actually use your brain to analyze the bible as a whole instead of cherry-picking sections and taking them simply at face value like a lot of bible christians do. It's no wonder such a shallow understanding would reach a different conclusion than that of Aquinas in his Summa.
Eye of the needle is the go-to bible verse that people use to demonize the rich. Jesus did not say it is impossible for wealthy people to get into heaven. In fact, in the gospels you quoted, his disciples ask him how can anyone be saved if that's true? And he responds that it's possible through God, but you conveniently left that out.
Jesus himself even mentions investment in the parable of the talents, where the servants who bring a return on the original investment are rewarded and the one who buries it in the ground is punished... not exactly a scathing review of capitalism.
If the shepherd is not simply another human being, why does Jesus tell St. Peter to tend to his flock, not once, but three times? Come on man, where do you think the word pastor comes from? Why is there a hierarchy in the church, Pope, archbishops, bishops, priests, if no classes are to exist? If no classes are to exist, then the topic of the Pope's resignation seems to be a moot point...
There is nothing inherently wrong with wealth, but it should never be the end goal, because heaven should be the end goal for Christians. And I agree that there isn't really explicit support for capitalism or socialism in the bible (which are both modern concepts), but I think free markets are implicit in the absence of a state.
As much of a great thinker Aquinas was, he was working purely off of the Latin texts that were later found to be wrought with mistakes in translation and even additions of extraneous words or phrases that were not present in the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. This was a large point of contention that preceded the Protestant reformation and eventually the Catholic Church came down with the dogmatic assertion that only the Vulgate could be used within its church. This ridiculous affront to scholarship and scripture was only lifted during the 20th century. All the traditional ways that theologians have tried to explain away the eye of the needle has been found to be based on questionable arguments by various Biblical scholars.
Now, of course Christ say that it is possible through the grace of God for the rich man to be saved, but this theme is something that is generally extended to all persons. You are saved through faith, you are saved by grace. But Christ's contention with worldly treasure can't be whisked way by your shallow interpretation because you are still ignoring pretty much every other part of the gospels where Christ speaks against worldly good. You still have Christ's direct command to sell everything you have and give all to the poor, and that this action must precede following him. His saying that one should not worry for the morrow, that his kingdom is not of this world, etc., is all explicit.
As for the parable of the talents, you're completely missing the point because the parable is thematically linked to the parable of the ten virgins that precedes it, which is preceded by the disciples asking Jesus about the second coming and the end of the world. So you're missing the whole context again. Where firstly you comically accuse me of taking something out of context when you are missing the totality of the gospels, and once again here.
And lastly, Christ never instituted a church hierarchy. Nowhere in the gospels does Christ lay out a systematic hierarchy. The ecclesiastical structure of the churches is an invention that has no precedence in the gospels. Lets not mistake Christendom for Christianity.
Also, there is nothing spoken of in the bible about an absence of state, and neither is there anything that points toward a free market.
On February 16 2013 00:45 koreasilver wrote: Perhaps the reason why Marxism can manifest in similar ways to a Christ-ian ethic is because Marxism is at its roots quasi-theological (Walter Benjamin), but I would be very wary of pursuing that point.
I delight in pursuing this point
Watch out, there's a gnome in your chess machine!
edit: for what it's worth, in my opinion, Marxism is entirely compatible with, and SHOULD ally itself with, religion. This is a tendency which, as koreasilver has pointed out, has a canonical precedent in Benjamin, and is being developed now by people like Slavoj Zizek and Alain Badiou. It's kinda the new thing in Marxism. that being said, Christ was not a political philosopher and Marx was not a theologian, although certainly Christ was influenced by the politics of his day and Marx spent some time thinking about theology. We've already allied ourselves with Lacan, and there's certainly a mystical-spiritual dimension here - when you start going around saying "les non-dupes errent," there goes the rabbit hole, and when you consider that the ideological enemy of Marxism today is cognitive-instrumental cult of the lab coats/ GDP tumor, getting in with the holy men starts to sound better and better every day.
Also, people don't understand what Marx meant by "opiate of the masses." He might as well have said "the tylenol of the masses." He also said religion was "the sigh of the oppressed." The conflict between institutional religion and actually-existing-communism has everything to do with history and not much to do with any real conflict between religion and marxism, since neither of the aforementioned institutions was exactly true to its philosophical core.
On February 16 2013 03:00 koreasilver wrote: As for the parable of the talents, you're completely missing the point because the parable is thematically linked to the parable of the ten virgins that precedes it, which is preceded by the disciples asking Jesus about the second coming and the end of the world..
this sounds interesting can you elaborate for my edification?
Viganò’s plight and other unflattering machinations would soon become public in an unprecedented leak of the pontiff’s personal correspondence. Much of the media — and the Vatican — focused on the source of the shocking security breach. Largely lost were the revelations contained in the letters themselves — tales of rivalry and betrayal, and allegations of corruption and systemic dysfunction that infused the inner workings of the Holy See and the eight-year papacy of Benedict XVI. Last week, he announced that he will become the first pope in nearly 600 years to resign.
The next pope may bring with him an invigorating connection to the Southern Hemisphere, a media magnetism or better leadership skills than the shy and cerebral Benedict. But whoever he may be, the 266th pope will inherit a gerontocracy obsessed with turf and Italian politics, uninterested in basic management practices and hostile to reforms.
VatiLeaks, as the scandal came to be known, dragged the fusty institution into the wild WikiLeaks era. It exposed the church bureaucracy’s entrenched opposition to Benedict’s fledgling effort to carve out a legacy as a reformer against the backdrop of a global child sex abuse scandal and the continued dwindling of his flock.
It showed how Benedict, a weak manager who may most be remembered for the way in which he left office, was no match for a culture that rejected even a modicum of transparency and preferred a damage-control campaign that diverted attention from the institution’s fundamental problems. Interviews in Rome with dozens of church officials, Vatican insiders and foreign government officials close to the church, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, mapped out that hermetic universe.
“We can reveal the face of the church and how this face is, at times, disfigured,” Benedict said in his final homily on Ash Wednesday. “I am thinking in particular of the sins against the unity of the church, of the divisions in the body of the church.” He called for his ministry to overcome “individualism” and “rivalry,” saying they were only for those “who have distanced themselves from the faith.”
Viganò’s plight and other unflattering machinations would soon become public in an unprecedented leak of the pontiff’s personal correspondence. Much of the media — and the Vatican — focused on the source of the shocking security breach. Largely lost were the revelations contained in the letters themselves — tales of rivalry and betrayal, and allegations of corruption and systemic dysfunction that infused the inner workings of the Holy See and the eight-year papacy of Benedict XVI. Last week, he announced that he will become the first pope in nearly 600 years to resign.
The next pope may bring with him an invigorating connection to the Southern Hemisphere, a media magnetism or better leadership skills than the shy and cerebral Benedict. But whoever he may be, the 266th pope will inherit a gerontocracy obsessed with turf and Italian politics, uninterested in basic management practices and hostile to reforms.
VatiLeaks, as the scandal came to be known, dragged the fusty institution into the wild WikiLeaks era. It exposed the church bureaucracy’s entrenched opposition to Benedict’s fledgling effort to carve out a legacy as a reformer against the backdrop of a global child sex abuse scandal and the continued dwindling of his flock.
It showed how Benedict, a weak manager who may most be remembered for the way in which he left office, was no match for a culture that rejected even a modicum of transparency and preferred a damage-control campaign that diverted attention from the institution’s fundamental problems. Interviews in Rome with dozens of church officials, Vatican insiders and foreign government officials close to the church, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, mapped out that hermetic universe.
“We can reveal the face of the church and how this face is, at times, disfigured,” Benedict said in his final homily on Ash Wednesday. “I am thinking in particular of the sins against the unity of the church, of the divisions in the body of the church.” He called for his ministry to overcome “individualism” and “rivalry,” saying they were only for those “who have distanced themselves from the faith.”
These stories are traveling around the world. according to news here, there is a report on the VatiLeaks case that has allegations of the Vatican getting extorted by unknown entities to keep homosexuality in the Vatican secret. It is not as much a condemnation of the Vatican or the recent popes as a questioning of why the Vatican doesn't at least open up a little bit, so they can avoid extortion and make it easier to follow the money. The document is rumoured by LaRepubblica.it
On February 16 2013 03:00 koreasilver wrote:You still have Christ's direct command to sell everything you have and give all to the poor, and that this action must precede following him. His saying that one should not worry for the morrow, that his kingdom is not of this world, etc., is all explicit.
I take it from your posts in this thread that you are Christian? In that case, have YOU sold everything you own? Why do you still have a computer to type on when God's children in Africa are obviously starving? What kind of computer do you have, is it good enough to run StarCraft II? Because you certainly don't NEED a computer like that for most jobs or university, if your argument is that you need your computer for work or study. Did you buy StarCraft II when it came out instead of sponsoring an extra child? Why have you not sold everything you own?
The Vatican on Saturday strongly condemned media coverage of a report that is said to contain information about the influence of a gay network and financial mismanagement within the Vatican, and which may have triggered Pope Benedict's decision to resign. But in his statement, a spokesman for the Vatican did not deny the report's existence or dispute the description of its findings.
The Italian newspaper La Repubblica broke the story that the report, which was commissioned by Pope Benedict in the wake of Vatileaks and prepared by a trio of cardinals, concluded that "various lobbies within the Holy See were consistently breaking" the sixth and seventh commandments, "thou shalt not commit adultery" and "thou shalt not steal."
Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi hit back on Vatican Radio Saturday morning by questioning the motives and method of the newspapers that reported the story and implying that the media is seeking to influence the election process of the next pope.
"There is no lack, in fact, of those who seek to profit from the moment of surprise and disorientation of the spiritually naive to sow confusion and to discredit the Church and its governance, making recourse to old tools, such as gossip, misinformation and sometimes slander, or exercising unacceptable pressures to condition the exercise of the voting duty on the part of one or another member of the College of Cardinals, who they consider to be objectionable for one reason or another," he said.
Lombardi also questioned the moral authority of the media. "Those who present themselves as judges, making heavy moral judgments, do not, in truth, have any authority to do so," he said. "Those who consider money, sex and power before all else and are used to reading diverse realities from these perspectives, are unable to see anything else."
EPT
![[image loading]](http://blog.powershop.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/powershop-pope.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/64517_10200179780688876_1427941413_n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/CrlpRMhzmedwSicGLRUYFA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMjE7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2013-02-12T001411Z_535592776_GM1E92C0MDH01_RTRMADP_3_POPE-RESIGNS.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/2810/vlcsnap33293ri8.png)
