Well hey, 2/3rds of the world at least are going to end up there, even if they didn't do anything. So yeah, should be a rave.Fablaam said:
Poll: What do you think of the Pope?
- Thread starter Mr Fatherland
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, Homophobia is the right word, and no they're not tolerant, you can only go to church without publicly announcing you are gay otherwise you get excomunicated.Abedeus said:
Yeah right, maybe if they repent their devilish ways and become good child making catholics.Abedeus said:
Isn't Poland the country with all those priests that say they can "cure" you of homosexuality anyway?
No, I think you must've mistaken us with Father Makey. He then had sex with Peterson for three hours.The infamous SCAMola said:
The only thing our priests are (in)famous for are scandals with pedophiles joining their ranks... Oh, and those crazed up nuns that have locked themselves up in a monastery and didn't want to leave for like a half a year.
^The infamous SCAMola said:
THIS
People also forgot he was part of the Hitler Youth.
Here's a quote from the Pope himself when asked about it: "It was like the boyscouts, everyone was in it."
That said, this Pope is quite stupid.
Not like I'm a fan of the Pope anyway, but anyone can tell you that John Paul II was better.
(and I'm not Christian.)
Whats wrong with the Pope? I mean im Protestant so I dont see the Pope as having religious authority over me but I still respect him as the leader of the Catholic Church. Yeah I know the last Pope is on his way to sainthood and thats a hard act to follow but the current Pope isnt bad.
uh, I had no idea what the German on the top says (feels stupid.) But in my opinion (as a non Catholic) although I didn't agree with John-Paul II I thought he was a great role-model for young Catholics. He was a guy who really fought for what he believed in and truly acted as an envoy.
New Pope on the other hand is a douche and is about the opposite of John Paul in my big-book-o-opinons (and it is quite large.)
Although I don't think he is a Nazi.
New Pope on the other hand is a douche and is about the opposite of John Paul in my big-book-o-opinons (and it is quite large.)
Although I don't think he is a Nazi.
Ug. I voted neigh, and that's mostly because as a Catholic even I dislike the current pope. He's definitely not my favorite guy.
I'm surprised this post hasn't been more highly moderated though. Largely, there's a lot of Christianity baiting going on here, but even among the Christians posting there is still Catholic baiting.
I'm just saying, I'm seeing plenty of anti-Catholic and anti-Religion comments, as much as I am seeing anti-Benedict comments. Technically, the former are off topic.
Lets get into the nitty-gritty, shall we?
http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html
From the lips of the man himself:
"Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
So, to you sir, I say fail.
Double plus fail, indeed.
2). Nearly no one who calls themselves a christian rejects materialism. I feel like you would be hard pressed to find people who literally followed Jesus word for word and sold all of their possessions to minister to the poor. But I can think of a few examples:
-Monks (Catholic)
-Nuns (Catholic)
-Priests (Catholic)
So the underlying contention in many people's posts (though perhaps not yours, Doug) that the Catholic church is some vessel of materialism and hypocrisy I find woefully ignorant.
Furthermore, I would argue that the "luxury" of the papacy is defensible. The pope needs to fly on a "Pope-Jet 3000" since he's obligated to travel all over the globe, and given that people are frequently trying to assassinate him, flying coach my not be the best idea. Second, the Vatican is practically a political entity that receives world leaders, attracts tourists, and serves as a command center for a gigantic, world wide humanitarian effort.
Could you liquidate the vatican and donate the proceeds to the poor? Sure.
Would you be better served maintaining the Vatican to coordinate a gigantic, world wide Church? Yes.
Finally, the richness of the papacy is not akin to the richness of, say, Donald Trump. The pope does not own investment properties in Miami, nor does he frequently build golf courses or vacation leisurely on a private island. The Pope's "wealth" is really the Church's wealth, in so far that if the Pope privately spend the Church's money on some personal luxury item, than shit would hit the fan. Again, I find the contention that the Pope is the theologian equivalent to Bill Gates ignorant and hateful.
Do the Africans need condoms?
Or do they need to change disease spreading behaviors, like having sex with virgins to try and cure sexually transmitted diseases?
Aids is not actually that virulent. You have between a 10-20% chance of transmission, given a single instance of intimate contact with someone who has AIDs. The flu and chicken pox are more contagious. The reason why it's an epidemic is because of behavior. AIDs spreads specifically because of non-monogamous sex. Demographics who have more sexual partners per year have higher instances of AIDs.
Abstinence would CURE aids. It wouldn't do much to help the people who have the disease now, of course. But if everyone on the planet were having monogamous sex, then AIDs virus would not be able to spread and it would go the way of the dinosaur.
Is that realistic? Perhaps not.
But take a second to think that implementing widespread condom use in Africa will also take an enormous culture wide behavior shift, and you're talking about two solutions that work through the same approach.
Are his comments bullshit because condom use would help the situation? This is more likely. Since it seems every study done on the matter says that if you're having non-monogamous sex, you're much better off shrink-wrapping it, his comment seems quite backward. Here, I would have to agree with popular opinion. An examination of Catholic theology and contraceptive use would probably give more insight into the position the Pope is in condoning condom use in Africa, but if he isn't going to support it, he's much better off not going on the record with something as boisterous as "Condom use will spread AIDs."
All I'm saying is, the abstinence approach is not bullshit by it's own virtue.
http://thoughtsongod.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/pope-benedict-on-evolution/
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003919.html
I wonder if there is such a thing as Double double plus fail?
Hopefully, his battle station is not fully operational.
A lot of people seem to think he's an egomaniac. Just by the way they go about talking/worshiping him.
Just saying!
Homosexual disposition is fine, homosexual sex is a sin. It's a sin in the same vein as contraception is a sin.
For me? As a Catholic, I've always treated what comes out of the Vatican as a professional theological opinion. The pope says, after much deliberation, we believe that X is the best path to follow to live a good life, in keeping with what God wants for us.
I've disagreed with it. I've always thought you could be more or less Catholic. There are Catholics who go to mass twice a year. There are Catholics like me, who go more frequently, but have disagreements. There are Catholics like my girlfriend, who goes to mass every weekend, who was an altar server for years, and who taught CCD, and who still uses the pill. And there are super Catholics like the cardinals and the Pope who are... well, super Catholics--they obviously fully believe what they preach.
The theology of sex that the Catholic Church espouses is an interesting one; I find it beautiful, personally. But not to the extent that I would give up contraception, masturbation, oral sex, etc to live that philosophy. And no to the extent that I expect homosexuals to give up homosexual sex.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, please pardon me if I said anything incendiary towards any other group: I am merely reacting defensively to what has been a nearly one sided discussion.
I'm surprised this post hasn't been more highly moderated though. Largely, there's a lot of Christianity baiting going on here, but even among the Christians posting there is still Catholic baiting.
I'm just saying, I'm seeing plenty of anti-Catholic and anti-Religion comments, as much as I am seeing anti-Benedict comments. Technically, the former are off topic.
Lets get into the nitty-gritty, shall we?
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htmDoug said:
http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html
From the lips of the man himself:
"Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
So, to you sir, I say fail.
Double plus fail, indeed.
A lot of people would agree with you that the current pope doesn't exactly have his ducks in order. I think I'll also agree with you here. This is a good example of a criticism specifically of Pope Benedict, and not a criticism of the papacy or the Catholic church in general (the latter being Catholic Baiting, and off topic).Doug said:
Doug said:
1). This is not a criticism specifically of Pope Benedict, so it's (a) off topic and (b) Catholic baiting.AndyFromMonday said:
2). Nearly no one who calls themselves a christian rejects materialism. I feel like you would be hard pressed to find people who literally followed Jesus word for word and sold all of their possessions to minister to the poor. But I can think of a few examples:
-Monks (Catholic)
-Nuns (Catholic)
-Priests (Catholic)
So the underlying contention in many people's posts (though perhaps not yours, Doug) that the Catholic church is some vessel of materialism and hypocrisy I find woefully ignorant.
Furthermore, I would argue that the "luxury" of the papacy is defensible. The pope needs to fly on a "Pope-Jet 3000" since he's obligated to travel all over the globe, and given that people are frequently trying to assassinate him, flying coach my not be the best idea. Second, the Vatican is practically a political entity that receives world leaders, attracts tourists, and serves as a command center for a gigantic, world wide humanitarian effort.
Could you liquidate the vatican and donate the proceeds to the poor? Sure.
Would you be better served maintaining the Vatican to coordinate a gigantic, world wide Church? Yes.
Finally, the richness of the papacy is not akin to the richness of, say, Donald Trump. The pope does not own investment properties in Miami, nor does he frequently build golf courses or vacation leisurely on a private island. The Pope's "wealth" is really the Church's wealth, in so far that if the Pope privately spend the Church's money on some personal luxury item, than shit would hit the fan. Again, I find the contention that the Pope is the theologian equivalent to Bill Gates ignorant and hateful.
This comment will be slightly tangential, but it is a reply to the use of bullshit to describe a plan of behavioral modification as a way of preventing AIDs.Doug said:
Do the Africans need condoms?
Or do they need to change disease spreading behaviors, like having sex with virgins to try and cure sexually transmitted diseases?
Aids is not actually that virulent. You have between a 10-20% chance of transmission, given a single instance of intimate contact with someone who has AIDs. The flu and chicken pox are more contagious. The reason why it's an epidemic is because of behavior. AIDs spreads specifically because of non-monogamous sex. Demographics who have more sexual partners per year have higher instances of AIDs.
Abstinence would CURE aids. It wouldn't do much to help the people who have the disease now, of course. But if everyone on the planet were having monogamous sex, then AIDs virus would not be able to spread and it would go the way of the dinosaur.
Is that realistic? Perhaps not.
But take a second to think that implementing widespread condom use in Africa will also take an enormous culture wide behavior shift, and you're talking about two solutions that work through the same approach.
Are his comments bullshit because condom use would help the situation? This is more likely. Since it seems every study done on the matter says that if you're having non-monogamous sex, you're much better off shrink-wrapping it, his comment seems quite backward. Here, I would have to agree with popular opinion. An examination of Catholic theology and contraceptive use would probably give more insight into the position the Pope is in condoning condom use in Africa, but if he isn't going to support it, he's much better off not going on the record with something as boisterous as "Condom use will spread AIDs."
All I'm saying is, the abstinence approach is not bullshit by it's own virtue.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22136550-5002700,00.htmlDoug said:
http://thoughtsongod.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/pope-benedict-on-evolution/
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003919.html
I wonder if there is such a thing as Double double plus fail?
You've actually just said three things.Doug said:
This is the truest criticism of the pope in this entire thread.Doug said:ITS A TRAP!
Hopefully, his battle station is not fully operational.
Not many people would believe him stupid.Pi_Fighter said:
A lot of people seem to think he's an egomaniac. Just by the way they go about talking/worshiping him.
If the discussion were about what you thought of some illegal immigrant who came across the Rio Grande, and you had said:Eskay said:
You would have been put on probation.Eskay said:
Just saying!
Look, I've gotten the same speech the dude you're debating with has gotten:The infamous SCAMola said:
Homosexual disposition is fine, homosexual sex is a sin. It's a sin in the same vein as contraception is a sin.
For me? As a Catholic, I've always treated what comes out of the Vatican as a professional theological opinion. The pope says, after much deliberation, we believe that X is the best path to follow to live a good life, in keeping with what God wants for us.
I've disagreed with it. I've always thought you could be more or less Catholic. There are Catholics who go to mass twice a year. There are Catholics like me, who go more frequently, but have disagreements. There are Catholics like my girlfriend, who goes to mass every weekend, who was an altar server for years, and who taught CCD, and who still uses the pill. And there are super Catholics like the cardinals and the Pope who are... well, super Catholics--they obviously fully believe what they preach.
The theology of sex that the Catholic Church espouses is an interesting one; I find it beautiful, personally. But not to the extent that I would give up contraception, masturbation, oral sex, etc to live that philosophy. And no to the extent that I expect homosexuals to give up homosexual sex.
Seekster said:
Holy shit. Thank you for your balanced and respectful opinions. I'm going to petition to put you both on the way to saint hood, given your lack of sarcasm and virulence.TheEvilDuck said:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, please pardon me if I said anything incendiary towards any other group: I am merely reacting defensively to what has been a nearly one sided discussion.