[QUOTE=Macleod1701]Well religious figures have made some extremely strange claims over the years. Earth being the centre of the universe was a big slip up for them, and don't get me started on when they claimed it was flat, (was that the vatican that claimed that)?[/quote]
I've never seen any reputable source from the Late Egyptian dynasties onward that ever felt the earth was flat. The Egyptians proved it wasn't, and that information disseminated fairly quickly. Unfortunately, the culture was structured in such a way that they couldn't advance beyond their truly remarkable beginnings in astronomy, chemistry, biology, and medicine.
The Vatican never claimed the earth was the center of the universe. What they did was argue that both the old Ptolemaic Theory (with all the planets in the solar system revolving around the sun) and a Copernican Theory (in which at least most of the planets revolved directly around the sun) could be reconciled. Galileo, loud-mouthed, smug idiot that he was, decided to ridicule the pope of the day, a very liberal-minded scholar, and in a document that was circulated throughout all the universities and courts of Europe. Naturally, the Vatican firmed up its position, and tossed Galileo in jail. Hell, if you'd read what Galileo wrote on that occasion and many, earlier ones, you'd want to do something unpleasant to him, too. The man stole the ideas of others without giving credit, cringed obsequiously when he wanted favors, ignored those who helped him when they were down and out, laughed condescendingly at anything he disagreed with, etc.
I'm no great fan of the Vatican, but Galileo was a 14-karat jerk.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Once, a few years ago, I told my grandmother that the pope should have already been replaced, I mean, he should have given up. He should continue to work and help the church in other places where he could be far more usefull than into the leading position. My grandmother told me to get out of her house and finde shelter somewhere else, with shouts of "it is God who decides when he is going to leave". Our relationship has never been the same after that, but I dont really miss it.
[QUOTE=CE]I think the very idea of the pope is a relic.[/QUOTE]
That is my point too. The idea of a nominated voice of God in the earth is kinda strange for my ears, and sounds a lot like politics stuff. Anyway, politics is what has ever made the church evolve or unenvolve (evolve backwards, sorry for my english) in many aspects.
I question myself every now and then why not accept the changes that the society needs? Of course, here we would be entering in the minefield of protected sex, priest marriage, nuns marriage and the belief in the bible. Aint the pope resilience to leave his place another sign of the corrosion of the church as an social support entity or even a money gathering enterprise?
[QUOTE=Fable]Unfortunately, his sudden death brought the program crashing down, and the conservative cardinals who had chosen him, retreated from following up with another revolutionary.[/QUOTE]
You see, for the Cardinals or whomever really directs the church, the better thing is to avoid changes. A transparent church means letting people see through the trash and deaths the church has caused, and seeing the intolerance they preached through their expansion route in Europe, Asia adn - in a very deeply social range closer to me - in the killing of indians and their beliefs. I dont see every order in the catholic church as bad, I dont see them backstabbing people, but they have destroyed cultures without care for anything. This is a strong truth, in my opinion, and thats why such an uproar happens when they see that a pure native comunity is being harassed by priests or evangelists (the RCC is no longer making expansion work with the "savage" indians at the same rate of the past, but there are a few evangelist chuches, all of them born from the same credo, that try to save the indians all the time, killing cultural factors that could somehow contribute in a better portrait of humankind). So no change in the internal factors help them hide many many dirt things.
[QUOTE=Mcleod]I just really don't undertsand why millions of people want to live their lives under the rules set down by at best a veritble corpse and all the cronies that follow him about in weird clothing.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you that this is a very bad marketing move for the church. A new pope would help the RCC to extend its influency optimally. And also it would increase the respect for the one in the lead position, since it is no longer a "rotting person" (sorry, not my intention to offend anyone).
[QUOTE=Fable] I suspect the College of Cardinals would say "traditional" instead of "fanatical," and "rebel" instead of "humanistic." [/QUOTE]
Yes, it is just like the president choosing the entire team to govern his country, a dictatorial thing, in the end. And they are the voice of god, so you cant really say they are wrong without being heretic.
[QUOTE=Mcleod]Then you have the typical rubbish they spout like 'gay people are evil' and 'beauty marks are the devils sign'.....wait that was whitch hunters.[/QUOTE]
Sometimes the absolute truths are easier to understand. People often prefer to make their judgement be guided, cause thinking is a bit hard - you will agree with me, Macleod. So, a simplistic religion, that encourage a slave form of life and a chain of power - you're poor because god wishes it, you are rich because god wishes it, so bow down to the priest and await for his greatness to bless you with better conditions on the heavens. Its all about acceptance and intolerance, and "To love each other as I loved you all" means to me that we must accept each other as they are, even though sometimes it is hard.
[QUOTE=fable]I've never seen any reputable source from the Late Egyptian dynasties onward that ever felt the earth was flat. The Egyptians proved it wasn't, and that information disseminated fairly quickly. Unfortunately, the culture was structured in such a way that they couldn't advance beyond their truly remarkable beginnings in astronomy, chemistry, biology, and medicine.
The Vatican never claimed the earth was the center of the universe. What they did was argue that both the old Ptolemaic Theory (with all the planets in the solar system revolving around the sun) and a Copernican Theory (in which at least most of the planets revolved directly around the sun) could be reconciled. Galileo, loud-mouthed, smug idiot that he was, decided to ridicule the pope of the day, a very liberal-minded scholar, and in a document that was circulated throughout all the universities and courts of Europe. Naturally, the Vatican firmed up its position, and tossed Galileo in jail. Hell, if you'd read what Galileo wrote on that occasion and many, earlier ones, you'd want to do something unpleasant to him, too. The man stole the ideas of others without giving credit, cringed obsequiously when he wanted favors, ignored those who helped him when they were down and out, laughed condescendingly at anything he disagreed with, etc.
I'm no great fan of the Vatican, but Galileo was a 14-karat jerk. [/QUOTE]
Hmmm I was sure I was at least partly right but I bow to your superior knowledge (you cheeky devil). I knew the egyptians, persians and arabs had already proven the earth to be round but I thought that the christian church refuted that. Oh well wont be the last time I'm wrong lol
Donkeys are aliens!
Argos contains the 'Laminated book of dreams', to catch the 'Tears of joy'.
So many beautiful things...I cannot posses them all....wait stock check beep boop beep beep
I'm not Catholic either, in fact I'm going stright to heck according to an old Pope cuz I'm a Mason. I do however see the need to not turn the Papacy into any more of a political position than it already is. I think John Paul wants to cling to his throne because as Luis grandmother put it "it is God who decides." I don't think he will leave voluntarily unless he feels God has decided he should.
Also, he may be very conservative in some respects, but didn't he apologize for the crusades and inquisition as well as proclaiming evolution part of God's plan? I could be way off here, but I thought I read that somewhere.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." Thomas Jefferson
[QUOTE=jopperm2]Also, he may be very conservative in some respects, but didn't he apologize for the crusades and inquisition as well as proclaiming evolution part of God's plan? I could be way off here, but I thought I read that somewhere.[/QUOTE]
As I recall, John Paul II apologized for the effects of the Inquisition, not the Inquisition, itself--not quite the same thing. In any case, the Vatican didn't have much influence on the Inquisition, which was directly under control of Spanish Dominicans; and it was actually a moderating force at the time in the witch/sorcerer hunts of Europe. (It was not a moderating force at home, however, where it was used to root out "heresies" among converted Jews and Muslims who had become Christians; but this was also Spanish government policy, under the "sainted" Ferdinand and Isabella, who believed in cultural/religious genocide.) Typically, the Inquisition held its prisoners suspected of witchcraft, etc, for a few months, checked for possession and dark arts through simple questioning, waited for public hysteria to blow over, then let the suspects go. More problems occurred when the secular authorities got hold of suspects, first.
There was never an apology (to my knowledge) offered for the Crusades. The Vatican would still like to control Jerusalem. I don't recall any comments from the pope about evolution.
These aren't important issues, in any case. It's easy to apologize for something done by somebody else 500 years ago. Look to what the Vatican does now. I think it is largely a force promulgating deception and harm because of its positions on AIDS, contraception, and the privilege of religion to secrecy in education--with what effects, the RCC has seen in massive payouts this past few years.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Thanks for the clarification on the Inquisition. Not exactly the same thing.
I think I remember somehthing about the crusades and evoltion(that's the big one for the church IMO) . Also, I remembered this last night I think he acknowledged the Big Bang Theory as correct. That's not a real big thing though as no one knows what caused such an event. It's easy to Christianize it.
I have a problem with the whole AIDS thing too. I can't blame them for discouraging condom use as that is their belief, but I don't agree with lying to the people. It would have been better to simply say Sex and bodily fluids like Blood cause AIDS and leave it at that. Not exactly the truth but a much better message.
I do think the RCC still wants Jerulelem as you said, but I think they were more apologizing for the genocidal implications of crusading.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." Thomas Jefferson
The pope's received the last rites. He's making a flurry of important, high-ranking appointments, no doubt to shore up the already huge arch-conservative platform that he's espoused over the years--if not, why make all these moves at the last moment? For better or worse, this pope has had the time, influence and will to dramatically shape the RCC. His is the third-longest tenure in papal history.
Anyone want to make a guess on what type of person will be elected, next? My thoughts are that a younger, more vigorous man in the same mold will be chosen.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=fable]Anyone want to make a guess on what type of person will be elected, next? My thoughts are that a younger, more vigorous man in the same mold will be chosen.[/QUOTE]
When you say younger, how young do you mean? Naturally, everyone is young compared to you o babylonian god, , but young is relative. My guess would be a man of 65 years old, an average of past elections. It's an old men's club after all.
Naturally, he too will be conservative. The church isn't know for it's changes through the years.
I’m not sure age will play that an important role in the next election. Rather, the place where he comes from will be a decisive factor. Also, I do not think a young cardinal has a great chance of getting elected. The church is kind of reluctant to have a young pope who holds on for more than a quarter of a century.
I believe there are several cardinals who are possible contenders for becoming the next pope. Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga (1942), from Latin America, is a possible contender. An increasing number of cardinals come from this region, so this increases his chances. However, since he’s only 62, the church might object to his young age. The second and third contenders are Dionigi Tettamanzi (1934), who leads in Milan the biggest bishopric of Europe, and Giovanni Battista Re (1934). I think these two are the greatest contenders for the next election. They have an acceptable age, both originate from Italy and have a good reputation.
There are, of course, more cardinals up for the position, but I unfortunately do not know their names. I know there’s a black cardinal, who’s goal –should he be appointed- is to ‘recruit’ a lot of believers in Africa. If he would be chosen, he would be the first black pope, at least, I think so. Another region is Asia. The church its popularity is rising explosively in that continent and a pope who originates from that region would more than likely increase the RCC following.
A black pope. That's interesting. It would make the Church less discriminating than America, but his goal is not good IMHO. I don't like the idea of spreading Christianity in Africa because the African people are a lot more 'sexually active', spreading AIDS much faster without the condoms. (presuming he isn't going to break with that 'tradition'.)
[size=-1]An optimist is a badly informed pessimist.[/size]
A good man near the end. May he rest in peace. I personally from a political point of view am very happy with what the Pope has done in the past to encourage peace and bring back the conservative line of thinking. I personally agree with a great deal with what the Pope had to say and his sentiments on many issues.
Many feel that the Pope was to conservative and that he made the Church harsher and stricter. I disagree with the assumption that it is a bad thing. I am happy he reverted to the traditions and time honored practices of the Catholic Church. (Fable is so gonna kick my ass for this )
A good man. I do hope the news that he pointed alot of people with a similar view point into the Vatican in positions of influence is true. The world needs more religion and promoting tolerance, something the Pope was famous for. Of course this is needed even more these days as people make the illogical jump that being religious means being intolerant. A moment of silence regardless of faith in his honor is a requirement in my opinion.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
[QUOTE=ik911]A black pope. That's interesting. It would make the Church less discriminating than America, but his goal is not good IMHO.[/quote]
I don't see how having a black pope would literally have anything to do with being more, less, or equal to the US in discriminatory practices. First, this is a comparison of--well, not apples and oranges, but bricks and oranges. One is a religion, the other a nation. One has a leader elected by a small group of elderly men, the other has a leader ostensibly elected by more than 100 million people. And if you're concerned about discrimination, perhaps you might look online at the RCC's attitude towards female priests. Finally, where is the virtue in committing a crime for which you no inclination? The RCC couldn't care less about color, so appointing a black pope wouldn't mean a thing, however their PR might try to paint it. By contrast, see if they appoint a pontiff who believes contraception is reasonable, at least in nations featuring incredibly high instances of AIDS. Not going to happen? Why, could it be they discriminate against priests with liberal ideas that might save lives and limit suffering?
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Funny how he changed his views in his latter years. One has to ponder if he faced his own mortality in some way. I remember this guy skiing with Jack Nicholson, tasting Champagne and generally being a brilliant, radical thinker in the late 80s. Then he had a stroke, and suddenly he turned into this hardcore demagogue with biased views on just about everything. No matter, after so many years of believing in some sort of heaven, I send my best hopes that he will find the afterlife he wants.
I am not young enough to know everything. - Oscar Wilde
Support bacteria, they're the only culture some people have!
[QUOTE=ik911]could it be they discriminate against priests with liberal ideas that might save lives and limit suffering?
No, that could not be.[/QUOTE]
Yes it could, as it goes against Christian morals.
I'm sure you know that the pope is against condoms? This causes much suffering in for instance Afrika where a large part of the population has HIV. Any Christian that 'encourages' the use of condoms will never be made pope as the Vatican is against it for several reasons, naturally none of them being against saving lifes and limit suffering. Still the effect is the same.
As I said before; it's an coservative old men's club.
I personaly am very saddened by this. I always admired him as a man and as a leader. A credit to his title, and to his religion (something that cannot be said about too many of his predecessors).
If only there were more like him, this world would be a better place if all religious leaders were like him.
A good man has passed on. May he rest in peace.
"Veni,Vidi,vici!"
(I came,I saw,I conquered!) Julius Ceasar
A good man. May he rest in peace. I do strongly wish a man of a similar view point and ideology follows the Pope.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
