NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh, dear. I guess we're all bound for Hell now - according to the Pope,
anyway. With the Pope being the Successor of Peter, the Shepherd of the Church 'til
the return of Christ - I think this Pope would do well to contemplate just how
exactly this castigation of a sovereign nation (for failing to perpetuate
intolerance and enshrining freedom of choice) helps to prepare the world for
the return of Jesus Christ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/08/pope-canada.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pope scolds Canada on gay marriage, abortion
Last Updated Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:12:47 EDT
The Associated Press

Pope Benedict lashed out Friday at Canada for allowing same-sex marriage
and abortion, saying the policies resulted from Catholic politicians ignoring the
values of their religion.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2006/09/08/pope-cp-508325.jpg

Pope Benedict, shown at the Vatican in
April, lamented Friday that Catholic politicians in Canada have yielded to Pope
Benedict, shown at the Vatican in April, lamented Friday that Catholic
politicians in Canada have yielded to "ephemeral social trends and the
spurious demands of opinion polls." (Andrew Medichini/Associated Press)

"In the name of tolerance, your country has had to endure the folly of the
redefinition of spouse," the Pope told a group of bishops from Ontario. "In the
name of freedom of choice, it is confronted with the daily destruction of
unborn children."

Such laws, Benedict said, are the result of "the exclusion of God from the
public sphere."

He lamented that Catholic politicians had yielded to "ephemeral social trends
and the spurious demands of opinion polls."

Benedict has made the defence of traditional family values a major goal of his
papacy, speaking out often on the issue. During a trip to Spain in July, he
challenged that country's socialist government for instituting liberal reforms
such as gay marriage and fast-track divorce.

Robert Mickens, the Rome correspondent for the Catholic newspaper The
Tablet, told CBC News that the tone of the Pope's speech was a lot sharper
than what he has said over the last several months.

Mickens said he suspected the speech was written for the Pope by Vatican
officials because it didn't bear his style or syntax.

Parliament passed legislation in June 2005 that made Canada the fourth
country in the world to recognize gay marriage.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he will revisit the issue and that
members of Parliament will be asked this fall whether they wish to reopen the
debate.

Although the motion could open the door to further discussion by MPs on
same-sex marriage, it will not directly challenge the existing legislation.

It may, however, ask if parliamentarians wish to repeal the existing law or
curtail it in some way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

is it me or is Pope Benedict a huge dick?

Standard Catholic doctrine. No real surprise.

*shrugs*

is it me or is Pope Benedict a huge dick?

He is simply following what is says in the Bible, as twisted as what it says may be. Do you expect him to publicly burn the Bible and say that you can have sex whenever you want, with whomever you want, and that you can kill the resulting baby?

Blame Canada, always the same. e recently got all but gay marriage, and there wasn't much fuss made.

Wow, so the Pope is just basically being... a Pope. Shocking.

is it me or is Pope Benedict a huge dick?

Well, he sure is ugly, but I've never noticed a penis-like appearance.

erg...and some people thought this was the pope who would allow contraception.

Begoner21;11656738']He is simply following what is says in the Bible, as twisted as what it says may be. Do you expect him to publicly burn the Bible and say that you can have sex whenever you want, with whomever you want, and that you can kill the resulting baby?

Yeah, but what does any of that have to do with him discharging his duties? Is Jesus Christ really the sort of guy who wants intolerance and gender-based repression perpetuated in his name - and expressly, yet - by the man hand-picked as Peter's Successor?

Unsurprisingly, Benedict is thoroughly disappointing.

erg...and some people thought this was the pope who would allow contraception.

Who the hell thought that? Even before they had the Conclave, everyone knew Pope Benedict XVI was a Conservative Pope.

Yeah, but what does any of that have to do with him discharging his duties? Is Jesus Christ really the sort of guy who wants intolerance and gender-based repression perpetuated in his name - and expressly, yet - by the man hand-picked as Peter's Successor?

Unsurprisingly, Benedict is thoroughly disappointing.
Unfortunately, so are most representatives of the Christian church. It's a shame they don't live up to the ideals they preach.

Is Jesus Christ really the sort of guy who wants intolerance and gender-based repression perpetuated in his name - and expressly, yet - by the man hand-picked as Peter's Successor?

Not being religious, I don't really have much of a clue about these matters. But isn't the Bible supposed to be the word of God, not Jesus, and so God is the sort of guy who wants "intolerance and gender-based repression perpetuated in his name," although it could also be termed "fighting deviation from moral values."

Let us hope he dies soon, shall we?

Then maybe the RCC will put someone in there that acts vaguely like a human being.

erg...and some people thought this was the pope who would allow contraception.

I thought Ratzinger was known for being very conservative?

Who the hell thought that? Even before they had the Conclave, everyone knew Pope Benedict XVI was a Conservative Pope.


i heard something on CNN(that might explain something in itself:p )

can't find a source though :/ maybe i imagined it....

i heard something on CNN(that might explain something in itself:p )

can't find a source though :/ maybe i imagined it....

Stop doing drugs! Bad! *slaps your hand* :p

His opinion, fair enough.
But should he be allowed to try and tell an elected government what to do? With what right? All Western countries have church and state seperated. As a representative of a church, he's not allowed to preach anything regarding politics, at least he wouldn't be in Germany. Well, I assume he issued that statement in a secular surrounding, not from the pulpit. But in that case he would be speaking as the head of the Vatican, an independent country.
In which case I, as a citizen of one of the criticized countries, do take offence at the undiplomatic language and the unwarranted meddling in internal affairs by a representative of a foreign country.

What a prick.

I never take the pope seriously, especially since this guy was in Hitler youth.

His opinion, fair enough.
But should he be allowed to try and tell an elected government what to do? With what right? All Western countries have church and state seperated. As a representative of a church, he's not allowed to preach anything regarding politics, at least he wouldn't be in Germany. Well, I assume he issued that statement in a secular surrounding, not from the pulpit. But in that case he would be speaking as the head of the Vatican, an independent country.
In which case I, as a citizen of one of the criticized countries, do take offence at the undiplomatic language and the unwarranted meddling in internal affairs by a representative of a foreign country.

What a prick.

Bwahaha! Very well done, that post.

Yeah, but what does any of that have to do with him discharging his duties? Is Jesus Christ really the sort of guy who wants intolerance and gender-based repression perpetuated in his name - and expressly, yet - by the man hand-picked as Peter's Successor?

Unsurprisingly, Benedict is thoroughly disappointing.
Gender-based repression?

This is one of the reasons I didn't stay with the Catholic Church. Like all religions, it is as liberal or conservative as it's leadership. We now have a conservative Pope, hence a conservative Catholic Church. The liberal Catholic Church wanted to throw out everything, good and bad, about the old Church; the conservative Catholic Church wants to keep nothing, good or bad, about the new Church.

Well those politicians are Catholic, so as the shepherd to the flock, he scolded them for straying. How is that not within his right?

Now if you choose to listen or not is entirely your choice. But honestly, you expect the pope to give a hip hooray for something as heavily debated as homosexuality?

He doesn't even complain about tolerating them in every day life, or letting them live their lives. He complains about the besmirching of the tradition of marriage, and only that. Which I see he has a right to, as the Church "traditionally" married people, maybe not anymore but that is hardly relevant.

You seriously expected the pope to praise the decision, when it states in the doctrine it is an act with a man and a woman?

If you get this upset over something so small, you must explode in apoplexy or die of an aneurysm when you hear that recently Iran killed a couple of men for just being homosexual, nevermind marrying.

Let us hope he dies soon, shall we?

Then maybe the RCC will put someone in there that acts vaguely like a human being.

First someone has to throw him down a reactor shaft.

Unfortunately, so are most representatives of the Christian church. It's a shame they don't live up to the ideals they preach.

Lets not get it twisted. We are talking about the Catholic church, so don't extend that to the "Christian" church. If you think you know enough Christians to claim they are "mostly" intolerant and/or hypocritical, you are mistaken. There are plenty of good, kind, giving Christians who might not agree with your lifestyle but would never spurn you for it. Hell, we had a Satanist start attending church once, and I never once saw or heard of anyone treating that guy with anything but kindness.


However, when I was younger me and some other kids did run a girl off because she was from up north and kept talking about stupid southerners. What can I say? I was young, and she was a bitch. (Hey, I'm not a practicing Christian anymore)

If you get this upset over something so small, you must explode in apoplexy or die of an aneurysm when you hear that recently Iran killed a couple of men for just being homosexual, nevermind marrying.

You know, I bet they don't even acknowledge that. After all, Iran isn't held to the same standards. They aren't a very good target for Libs.

Well those politicians are Catholic, so as the shepherd to the flock, he scolded them for straying. How is that not within his right?

Now if you choose to listen or not is entirely your choice. But honestly, you expect the pope to give a hip hooray for something as heavily debated as homosexuality?

He doesn't even complain about tolerating them in every day life, or letting them live their lives. He complains about the besmirching of the tradition of marriage, and only that. Which I see he has a right to, as the Church "traditionally" married people, maybe not anymore but that is hardly relevant.

You seriously expected the pope to praise the decision, when it states in the doctrine it is an act with a man and a woman?

If you get this upset over something so small, you must explode in apoplexy or die of an aneurysm when you hear that recently Iran killed a couple of men for just being homosexual, nevermind marrying.


It's the states decision, and I expect him to stay out of it.

He can preach all he wants against homosexuals in the confines of the church, but he has no right to officially criticise a government for a decision on their legislation and on a secular institustion such as marriage. As you very well pointed out, marriage used to be an institution of the church, but it no longer is. I can only speak for Germany here, but I'm pretty sure the legislation in other European states isn't vastly different : if you get married in a church, the marriage is not legal or valid in any way.
The only way to get legally married is by getting married at the civil registry office.
It's none of his business any more. It's got nothing to do with the church. The church can still refuse to marry people because they don't like their choice of lifestyle or the shape of their feet.

I don't live in Iran. I was born in Germany and I live in Ireland now, and those are the places where I want to see true equality for all and tolerance towards others. Once that's established, we can start talking about Iran, ok?

First someone has to throw him down a reactor shaft.

*roflmao

*highfives Gauthier

Also he may be a "dick", but he is very intelligent. But I doubt one person on this board can challenge his intellect, knowledge or power of thought. He was the most experienced scholar of the Roman Catholic Church, and his knowledge in languages and history is nothing short of amazing. If you actually take the chance to study him in person or read his various books he has written his logic is quite amazing.

But of course it takes an academic level in english and a lot of patience to read his long and complex theological writings.

I just find it rather immature to base your whole opinion on a person, without even knowing the intricities of the person, which in my opinion shows a lack of maturity or deeper understanding.

Benedict is in no way comparable to any of the deranged loons such as Fred Phelps or other of his ilk. He actually studies and muses over everything before spouting out stuff, also he never speaks angrily nor shouts. His way of thought and speech is calm, directed, and based on theology and logic. And in the past even answered questions of ardent atheists and said he enjoyed speaking with those of a different mind then him.

High-profile Christian proves he's a dumbass. This is news how?

The Pope is only re-affirming his faith. The Bible is completely explicit about the issue: it is the Law of Moses that a man lies with a man as he does with a woman, he will be PUT TO DEATH. That is the word of your God, if you are a Christian, you MUST believe that homosexuals are evil. The Bible is not ambiguous about who gets killed.

That is why Christianity should be destroyed, outright and utterly. It is a collection of ancient, outdated myths filled with calls to violence, oppression, hypocrisy, lies. It has drawn our modern society back centuries in regards to civil liberties.

Abortion must be legal. Gay marriage must be legal. Pornography, sodomy, violent TV and movies, sex on TV and in movies, marijuana, free speech in schools, the complete demolition of God's presence at courthouses, on money, in schools, in the Pledge of Allegiance. This faith invites conservatism, invities oppression, invites fascism. Destroy this religion.

Homosexuals are humans. Fetuses are not. The latter does not deserve more respect than the other. You murder doctors over abortion, you disown your gay children because of your pretendo-friendo in the sky, you ban books and restrict television, you teach your young to be ashamed of their bodies and ashamed of sex, you have no place in an American democracy. The Founding Fathers were collectiely agnostic, and today, smart people know better. Atheism is on the rise, atheism will overtake you, atheism will blot you out and your counterparts from Mecca.

Christianity is not ambiguous. The Pope is not a liar or a hypocrite: Christianity is a negative influence.

It's the states decision, and I expect him to stay out of it.

He can preach all he wants against homosexuals in the confines of the church, but he has no right to officially criticise a government for a decision on their legislation and on a secular institustion such as marriage. As you very well pointed out, marriage used to be an institution of the church, but it no longer is. I can only speak for Germany here, but I'm pretty sure the legislation in other European states isn't vastly different : if you get married in a church, the marriage is not legal or valid in any way.
The only way to get legally married is by getting married at the civil registry office.
It's none of his business any more. It's got nothing to do with the church. The church can still refuse to marry people because they don't like their choice of lifestyle or the shape of their feet.

I don't live in Iran. I was born in Germany and I live in Ireland now, and those are the places where I want to see true equality for all and tolerance towards others. Once that's established, we can start talking about Iran, ok?

Ok, clear up for me who is all, and you seem to be mistaking the terms acceptance and tolerance.

For example, if I would be homophobic and have the absolute urge to hit homosexual people, but don't and let them live in peace but avoid them where I can. I would be tolerant.

But if I were an all open person and had positive views towards homosexuals and fraternized (not sexually) with them often I am accepting of them.

Because as it stands the Pope is tolerant of homosexuality, just because he says its wrong doesn't mean he is intolerant. Intolerant is if he would put up posters saying "kill all fags", or other forms of driving hate towards them.

IN this case he simply says Marriage is the right of the Church and should be between a man and a woman.

Ok then do you live in Canada? No you don't Iran is not muc further away then Canada to you, so why make a difference? Or only western civilization you deem fit enough to concentrate your views on?

Also he stayed out of the states decision per se. But since when can he not criticze Catholics for failing to adhere to their religion? Or are all catholics that work in "governments" to be given immunity from the Pope's guiding?

Also he may be a "dick", but he is very intelligent. But I doubt one person on this board can challenge his intellect, knowledge or power of thought. He was the most experienced scholar of the Roman Catholic Church, and his knowledge in languages and history is nothing short of amazing. If you actually take the chance to study him in person or read his various books he has written his logic is quite amazing.

But of course it takes an academic level in english and a lot of patience to read his long and complex theological writings.

I just find it rather immature to base your whole opinion on a person, without even knowing the intricities of the person, which in my opinion shows a lack of maturity or deeper understanding.

Benedict is in no way comparable to any of the deranged loons such as Fred Phelps or other of his ilk. He actually studies and muses over everything before spouting out stuff, also he never speaks angrily nor shouts. His way of thought and speech is calm, directed, and based on theology and logic. And in the past even answered questions of ardent atheists and said he enjoyed speaking with those of a different mind then him.



I agree that he's a far cry from a religious lunatic, he's more of the cold calculating kind. That doesn't chane the fact that both are preaching intolerance. One is shouting it , the other is basing it on 2 millenia of intolerance, but the result is much the same.

Nobody doubts that he is intelligent, you can't be dumb and survive in the church. Not in his position. What we are debatting here are his values and his disrespectful behaviour. You can be intelligent and still be an arrogant, discriminating, intolerant prick.

Also he may be a "dick", but he is very intelligent. But I doubt one person on this board can challenge his intellect, knowledge or power of thought. He was the most experienced scholar of the Roman Catholic Church, and his knowledge in languages and history is nothing short of amazing. If you actually take the chance to study him in person or read his various books he has written his logic is quite amazing.

But of course it takes an academic level in english and a lot of patience to read his long and complex theological writings.

I just find it rather immature to base your whole opinion on a person, without even knowing the intricities of the person, which in my opinion shows a lack of maturity or deeper understanding.

Benedict is in no way comparable to any of the deranged loons such as Fred Phelps or other of his ilk. He actually studies and muses over everything before spouting out stuff, also he never speaks angrily nor shouts. His way of thought and speech is calm, directed, and based on theology and logic. And in the past even answered questions of ardent atheists and said he enjoyed speaking with those of a different mind then him.

I don't care how smart he is, as long as he fails to apply logic, he's wrong.

Which is why I - and anyone with skill in arguing and logic - would easily beat him on the issue of gay marriage. There IS NO REASON not to allow it if the churches aren't forced to marry gay couples. He knows it, I know it, and if he ever tried to argue that with me with anything short of his fallacy that God is as intolerant as he is, he'll lose. Hands down. Easily. Crushed under my thumb.

Same goes for many other issues really.

Because as it stands the Pope is tolerant of homosexuality, just because he says its wrong doesn't mean he is intolerant. Intolerant is if he would put up posters saying "kill all fags", or other forms of driving hate towards them.

That wouldn't be intolerance, that would incitement to violence.

IN this case he simply says Marriage is the right of the Church and should be between a man and a woman.

Only it's not. Read my post again. Marriage by the church does not constitute marriage in at least several European countries.
It's non of his business, and criticising politicians for trying to create a more tolerant and openminded society is intolerance.


Ok then do you live in Canada? No you don't Iran is not muc further away then Canada to you, so why make a difference? Or only western civilization you deem fit enough to concentrate your views on?

No, I don't live in Canada. I nver said a word about anything going on in Canadian politics, it doesn't concern me.

I agree that he's a far cry from a religious lunatic, he's more of the cold calculating kind. That doesn't chane the fact that both are preaching intolerance. One is shouting it , the other is basing it on 2 millenia of intolerance, but the result is much the same.

Nobody doubts that he is intelligent, you can't be dumb and survive in the church. Not in his position. What we are debatting here are his values and his disrespectful behaviour. You can be intelligent and still be an arrogant, discriminating, intolerant prick.

LOL
Because he doesn't agree with homosexuality and abortion? So, not sharing your viewpoint makes him intolerant? Has he actively persecuted homosexuals? Has he done anything to them? No, of course not. He just has a different opinion, and to you (and many of the other childlike posters on these forums) that makes him intolerant, discriminatory, prejudiced, and whatever other favorite liberal bywords you can dream up to describe him and undermine his position.

Sigh. When will you grow up and realize that tolerance works both ways. The popes language in regards to homosexuality is far more tolerant than your language regarding him. And yet you fail to see the irony of your statements.

Begoner21;11656738']He is simply following what is says in the Bible, as twisted as what it says may be. Do you expect him to publicly burn the Bible and say that you can have sex whenever you want, with whomever you want, and that you can kill the resulting baby?

Actually, the Bible says nothing about the governmental definition of marriage or ruling by Christianity, nor how Christian politicians ought to force their beliefs on the nation they are to represent.

I understand your point that the Pope will oppose this or that, but the Bible does not insist that governments be made to comply with its teachings. Telling politicians they must govern by Christian beliefs is beyond Scripture.

Actually, the Bible says nothing about the governmental definition of marriage or ruling by Christianity, nor how Christian politicians ought to force their beliefs on the nation they are to represent.

I understand your point that the Pope will oppose this or that, but the Bible does not insist that governments be made to comply with its teachings. Telling politicians they must govern by Christian beliefs is beyond Scripture.

And, regardless, saying that they should disregard what people think, considering these people ELECTED them? Further, "disregard what the people think, pay attention to what I think"? When was Ratzlinger changed into the dictator of Canada? His position is antidemocratic at the very least!

I agree that he's a far cry from a religious lunatic, he's more of the cold calculating kind. That doesn't chane the fact that both are preaching intolerance. One is shouting it , the other is basing it on 2 millenia of intolerance, but the result is much the same.

Nobody doubts that he is intelligent, you can't be dumb and survive in the church. Not in his position. What we are debatting here are his values and his disrespectful behaviour. You can be intelligent and still be an arrogant, discriminating, intolerant prick.


Well the future of the Church is anyway in South America, Africa and funnily enough the way it looks China. There Church in essence will shed itself of its European cloth before succumbing to the sinners so to speak. It would take a pretty liberal pope to contemplate allowing gay marriage.

And how is he preaching intolerance? Is he advocating the death, isolation, or chastising of homosexual people? No he is not, which by definition makes him tolerant of homosexuals. However he views that according to the traditional view, the family is a mother a father and children, and marriage is the confirmation to form a family, as in almost every soceity on earth. So it makes it very, very difficult to justify gay marriage, since I cannot see a gay marriage being formed for the purpose of getting children with eachother. So he is against that obviously.

Also if the pope is a homophobe why does he allow homosexuals to enter priesthood? It is ridicolous to call him a homophobe because he refuses to agree to only one notion that homosexuals must be able to marry, i.e the biggest problem is even the word marriage. Probably if it would be completely secular in word, action and type that Pope wouldn't care twice. For example they get a civil union with similar rights as heterosexual people, but no they insist on marriage, even on the word as if it gives a magical meaning to use the same word as heterosexuals.

LOL
Because he doesn't agree with homosexuality and abortion? So, not sharing your viewpoint makes him intolerant? Has he actively persecuted homosexuals? Has he done anything to them? No, of course not. He just has a different opinion, and to you (and many of the other childlike posters on these forums) that makes him intolerant, discriminatory, prejudiced, and whatever other favorite liberal bywords you can dream up to describe him and undermine his position.

Sigh. When will you grow up and realize that tolerance works both ways. The popes language in regards to homosexuality is far more tolerant than your language regarding him. And yet you fail to see the irony of your statements.

The thing that upsets me actually is not the fact that he's against gays marrying, abortions and equal rights for women. Although I do find all of these positions intrusive and inacceptable in my private life. The fact that annoys me is that he officially criticises elected politicians of a country of which he is not a citizen for their decisions.
If this thread was about another outburst by Ahmandinejad about the internal affairs of the US, you'd be one of the first to cry out against it.

Thank God that the Catholic Church is blessed with a pontiff who proclaims the eternal truths of the faith and is not intimidated by Christian-haters, moral relativists, backsliders, neo-pagans, atheists, secular liberals and the rest of the forces seeking to undermine and destroy it, along with traditional Western culture.

The Holy Spirit was clearly at work when Benedict XVI ascended to the throne of St. Peter.

That wouldn't be intolerance, that would incitement to violence.



Only it's not. Read my post again. Marriage by the church does not constitute marriage in at least several European countries.
It's non of his business, and criticising politicians for trying to create a more tolerant and openminded society is intolerance.



No, I don't live in Canada. I nver said a word about anything going on in Canadian politics, it doesn't concern me.

No that would be intolerance. Learn the proper meaning of the word, not how it is sometimes used by rather ignorant people.

It is precisely his business what is done with the sanctity of marriage.

Well this is about Canada, so why did you just bother wasting both of our time in a conversation that is now a complete farce because of your previous statement about Iran not concerning you because,......

Actually, the Bible says nothing about the governmental definition of marriage or ruling by Christianity, nor how Christian politicians ought to force their beliefs on the nation they are to represent.

I understand your point that the Pope will oppose this or that, but the Bible does not insist that governments be made to comply with its teachings. Telling politicians they must govern by Christian beliefs is beyond Scripture.

However, Israel was based on theocratic beliefs in the Bible, and the entire political structure gave tremendous power to the religious faction. In fact, God ordered many Biblical kings to destroy idols etc. or even annihilate entire cities because they were offensive to the Lord. So, drawing from the example of the one country God actually held much power in at the time, it would seem that we are expected to shape the government around those beliefs. That is the example we are shown.

Now, don't take that to mean I agree with it. It's just that a biblical perspective would support using Church tenets in legislation.

Begoner21;11656738']But isn't the Bible supposed to be the word of God, not Jesus, and so God is the sort of guy who wants "intolerance and gender-based repression perpetuated in his name," although it could also be termed "fighting deviation from moral values."

God and Jesus are one in Christian theology, part of a Trinity including the Holy Spirit. Some Christian sects believe in various levels, personifications, and separation of this...entity...but most regard them as One.

And, regardless, saying that they should disregard what people think, considering these people ELECTED them? Further, "disregard what the people think, pay attention to what I think"? When was Ratzlinger changed into the dictator of Canada? His position is antidemocratic at the very least!

This is why Catholics were persecuted in the US for so long - people believed that their allegiance was not to the country, but either Rome or Heaven. Decrees like this actually give some weight to that claim. Would you vote a Catholic in if you knew s/he was beholden to the leader of another nation?

Well the future of the Church is anyway in South America, Africa and funnily enough the way it looks China. There Church in essence will shed itself of its European cloth before succumbing to the sinners so to speak. It would take a pretty liberal pope to contemplate allowing gay marriage.

And how is he preaching intolerance? Is he advocating the death, isolation, or chastising of homosexual people? No he is not, which by definition makes him tolerant of homosexuals. However he views that according to the traditional view, the family is a mother a father and children, and marriage is the confirmation to form a family, as in almost every soceity on earth. So it makes it very, very difficult to justify gay marriage, since I cannot see a gay marriage being formed for the purpose of getting children with eachother. So he is against that obviously.

In which case he can preach that to his followers. To urge politicians to force his views on people who believe neither in him nor in his idea of marriage and family is overstepping the boundaries.


Also if the pope is a homophobe why does he allow homosexuals to enter priesthood? It is ridicolous to call him a homophobe because he refuses to agree to only one notion that homosexuals must be able to marry, i.e the biggest problem is even the word marriage. Probably if it would be completely secular in word, action and type that Pope wouldn't care twice. For example they get a civil union with similar rights as heterosexual people, but no they insist on marriage, even on the word as if it gives a magical meaning to use the same word as heterosexuals.

Did I call him a homophobe? Where?

And it is not called a civil union in Germany. It's called a marriage, and it has to be performed by the state to be legal. Must be the third time now that I'm pointing that out.
He still has every right to refuse to marry people for completely random reasons if he likes. Nobody is disputing that.
What homosexuals want are legal marriages, performed by the state, same as everybody else. And the pope has no right in the world to speak out against that.

Thank God that the Catholic Church is blessed with a pontiff who proclaims the eternal truths of the faith and is not intimidated by Christian-haters, moral relativists, backsliders, neo-pagans, atheists, secular liberals and the rest of the forces seeking to undermine and destroy it, along with traditional Western culture.

The Holy Spirit was clearly at work when Benedict XVI ascended to the throne of St. Peter.
I would sincerely like to hope that's sarcasm, but from what I've seen from you it's probably not. So, without further ado:
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
OH NOEZ, PH3AR TEH ATHEIST LIBERAL CONSPIRACY TO DESTROY TEH WEST!!!111elveN!

The thing that upsets me actually is not the fact that he's against gays marrying, abortions and equal rights for women. Although I do find all of these positions intrusive and inacceptable in my private life. The fact that annoys me is that he officially criticises elected politicians of a country of which he is not a citizen for their decisions.
If this thread was about another outburst by Ahmandinejad about the internal affairs of the US, you'd be one of the first to cry out against it.


Ok the Pope is the official representative of the "nation" of the Vatican. So he is not allowed to criticize another nations actions? So by this logic you want that all heads of all nations are not allowed to criticize another government?

Ok then we would live in a very lonely isolated world according to you.

Or is it just the pope that is not allowed to form an opinion? That would be "intolerant" towards him now wouldn't that be?

The thing that upsets me actually is not the fact that he's against gays marrying, abortions and equal rights for women. Although I do find all of these positions intrusive and inacceptable in my private life. The fact that annoys me is that he officially criticises elected politicians of a country of which he is not a citizen for their decisions.
If this thread was about another outburst by Ahmandinejad about the internal affairs of the US, you'd be one of the first to cry out against it.

Hmm, didn't realize I had become so predictable.....

In fact, I don't know who Ahmed whatever is. Or at least, I haven't really noticed him.

So what if he criticizes them? Europeans criticize American politicians all the time. Hypocrisy oozes from your every post. You just hate the fact that his opinion is different than yours, and it made it in the news.

Also, I don't like the way the US is run right now. However, I'm a soldier and I do my duty. That doesn't mean I love the way we keep getting embroiled in wars, or the shabby choices we're offered when it comes time to visit the polls. You really would know this if you'd seen some of my outbursts ranting about how much I hate some of whats going on.


Oh, I and couldn't give two shits about gays marrying.

No that would be intolerance. Learn the proper meaning of the word, not how it is sometimes used by rather ignorant people.

in·tol·er·ant


1 : unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights

Which part of it doesn't apply to the pope's stance on gay marriage?

It is precisely his business what is done with the sanctity of marriage.

Marriage is a civil institution, nothing sacred. It's none of his business.

Well this is about Canada, so why did you just bother wasting both of our time in a conversation that is now a complete farce because of your previous statement about Iran not concerning you because,......

Benedict has made the defence of traditional family values a major goal of his
papacy, speaking out often on the issue. During a trip to Spain in July, he
challenged that country's socialist government for instituting liberal reforms
such as gay marriage and fast-track divorce. ...

THIS is what I'm on about. This is Europe, this is what concerns me. Did you just read the heading of the article?

I really don't give a damn either if homosexuals marry or not. I am just trying to deal with Cabra's deeply prejudiced and intolerant way of thinking regarding the rights of the sovereign state of the Vatican. According to her it should not have the powers other nations have by being forced to shut its mouth unless its furthers her agenda which even the western world is heavily debated about.

However, Israel was based on theocratic beliefs in the Bible, and the entire political structure gave tremendous power to the religious faction. In fact, God ordered many Biblical kings to destroy idols etc. or even annihilate entire cities because they were offensive to the Lord. So, drawing from the example of the one country God actually held much power in at the time, it would seem that we are expected to shape the government around those beliefs. That is the example we are shown.

Now, don't take that to mean I agree with it. It's just that a biblical perspective would support using Church tenets in legislation.

People, including the anti-religious in this forum, make the critical mistake of giving equal weight to the Old Testament as the New. The New Testament reframed the old, and many of the old, hateful, warlike bits were not endorsed. Most of Mosaic Law was done away with, though some modern Christians still cherry-pick from it to support their prejudices. A helpful guideline - look at what Jesus actually said, then figure out what the message ought to be.

And by the way, one needn't be tolerant of intolerance to support tolerance. Extremism in anything is detrimental to the belief system. A belief in tolerance is no different.

Ok the Pope is the official representative of the "nation" of the Vatican. So he is not allowed to criticize another nations actions? So by this logic you want that all heads of all nations are not allowed to criticize another government?

Ok then we would live in a very lonely isolated world according to you.

Or is it just the pope that is not allowed to form an opinion? That would be "intolerant" towards him now wouldn't that be?

They do. But they don't do so from the pulpit. They do it in their function as representatives of their respective countries. As such, they are entitled to it, even though you'll find that most of them are diplomatic enough not to do so unless it directly affects their own country.

That is why Christianity should be destroyed, outright and utterly. It is a collection of ancient, outdated myths filled with calls to violence, oppression, hypocrisy, lies. It has drawn our modern society back centuries in regards to civil liberties.
Wow... Rather hateful in your opinions there.

BTW, what about our islamic friends?


Abortion must be legal. Gay marriage must be legal. Pornography, sodomy, violent TV and movies, sex on TV and in movies, marijuana, free speech in schools, the complete demolition of God's presence at courthouses, on money, in schools, in the Pledge of Allegiance. This faith invites conservatism, invities oppression, invites fascism. Destroy this religion.
Nice opinions.


Homosexuals are humans. Fetuses are not. The latter does not deserve more respect than the other. You murder doctors over abortion, you disown your gay children because of your pretendo-friendo in the sky, you ban books and restrict television, you teach your young to be ashamed of their bodies and ashamed of sex, you have no place in an American democracy. The Founding Fathers were collectiely agnostic, and today, smart people know better. Atheism is on the rise, atheism will overtake you, atheism will blot you out and your counterparts from Mecca.
Who ever said they aren't? (Never did understand where you people get that idea from? :confused: ) Opinion which many disagree with. No, it really doesn't... :|

Again, all opinion. Hope you weren't trying to make a point or something.


Christianity is not ambiguous. The Pope is not a liar or a hypocrite: Christianity is a negative influence.
Pot calling the kettle black. :rolleyes:

*cough*

This is why Catholics were persecuted in the US for so long - people believed that their allegiance was not to the country, but either Rome or Heaven. Decrees like this actually give some weight to that claim. Would you vote a Catholic in if you knew s/he was beholden to the leader of another nation?

Bush is a protestant and makes me miss JFK, so it doesn't prove much - unless the Canada lawmakers heed what the German Shepherd says.

I really don't give a damn either if homosexuals marry or not. I am just trying to deal with Cabra's deeply prejudiced and intolerant way of thinking regarding the rights of the sovereign state of the Vatican. According to her it should not have the powers other nations have by being forced to shut its mouth unless its furthers her agenda which even the western world is heavily debated about.

Again, had he criticised the political decisions in his role as representative of a sovereign state, it would have been his right to do so.
He didn't. He criticised them in his role as religious leader. And he had no right to do that, in the legal frame of separation of church and state in Europe.

I'm not speaking about Canada here, as I'm unfamiliar with their legislation and constitution.

Unsurprisingly, Benedict is thoroughly disappointing.

In that he disagrees with you?

Which part of it doesn't apply to the pope's stance on gay marriage?



Marriage is a civil institution, nothing sacred. It's none of his business.





THIS is what I'm on about. This is Europe, this is what concerns me. Did you just read the heading of the article?

Yes exactly where in the definition does it prove he is intolerant? He grants them freedom of expression in allowing them to live their lives. And even hiring them into his service. He merely disagrees with them having the same name for an institution seen by the vast majority of the world as a bond to procreate and between a man and a woman. You did nothing but reaffirm my point, learn to read your input before contradicting yourself.

Again, had he criticised the political decisions in his role as representative of a sovereign state, it would have been his right to do so.
He didn't. He criticised them in his role as religious leader. And he had no right to do that, in the legal frame of separation of church and state in Europe.

I'm not speaking about Canada here, as I'm unfamiliar with their legislation and constitution.

He is the sovereign leader and religious leader in one. Quite difficult no? It is the only case of such I know in the world, it is his right as a sovereign leader to make statements but as his role as head of a religion to place religious judgement in his speech as he has the authority to. So either we curtail the right of sovereign leaders abilities to speak up, or what they are allowed to say, but this would go against free speech no?

They do. But they don't do so from the pulpit. They do it in their function as representatives of their respective countries. As such, they are entitled to it, even though you'll find that most of them are diplomatic enough not to do so unless it directly affects their own country.

As I said the Pope is the special case, the world recognizes the Vatican as a sovereign country so he has the right. He is of sorts a monarch/religious leader/leader of a sovereign nation all in one. Oh also a military leader if you wish to count the Swiss guard inside. He has the powers of all entities and positions, so he was well within his diplomatic rights to make the speech he did. Your personal opinion or preferences are not applicable in political ramifications, is that so hard to grasp?

Thank God that the Catholic Church is blessed with a pontiff who proclaims the eternal truths of the faith and is not intimidated by Christian-haters, moral relativists, backsliders, neo-pagans, atheists, secular liberals and the rest of the forces seeking to undermine and destroy it, along with traditional Western culture.

The Holy Spirit was clearly at work when Benedict XVI ascended to the throne of St. Peter.

Thank God that Josef "the German Shepherd" Ratzlinger will die soon enough and that the Church will end up electing someone that's actually human to its top. That or it'll disappear out of failure to adapt. We will win, Mitanni. We're not "Christian-haters", or "backsliders", we are the future. Your opinions belong in the same place the Inquisition does: In the past.

We will win and there's nothing you or your twisted idea of a God can do about it.

Nothing.

And that makes you furious enough to come here to spout garbage online, because that's all you can do, from your position of utter and complete powerlessness.

Pitiful.

As I said the Pope is the special case, the world recognizes the Vatican as a sovereign country so he has the right. He is of sorts a monarch/religious leader/leader of a sovereign nation all in one. Oh also a military leader if you wish to count the Swiss guard inside. He has the powers of all entities and positions, so he was well within his diplomatic rights to make the speech he did. Your personal opinion or preferences are not applicable in political ramifications, is that so hard to grasp?

You see, he wasn't saying that as a political leader, but as a religious one. He didn't appeal to international relations, he appealled to faith. THAT'S the problem here.

Yes exactly where in the definition does it prove he is intolerant? He grants them freedom of expression in allowing them to live their lives. And even hiring them into his service. He merely disagrees with them having the same name for an institution seen by the vast majority of the world as a bond to procreate and between a man and a woman. You did nothing but reaffirm my point, learn to read your input before contradicting yourself.

Would you PLEASE start to read my posts and stop putting words in my mouth? Thank you so much.
I never claimed he was a homophobe. But he is intolerant of gay marriage. Big difference.
Homos ok, homos marrying not ok = intolerance towards gay marriage.
Do you need me to spell it out again?

...unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights

Canada is not forcing any churches to perform the marriages, they will be performed by the state only.
The fact that the churches had monopolised the institution for several centuries doesn't mean they can go on doing so. These days, states perform legal marriages, not churches. It's no longer in his jurisdiction to deny anybody a legal marriage.

People, including the anti-religious in this forum, make the critical mistake of giving equal weight to the Old Testament as the New. The New Testament reframed the old, and many of the old, hateful, warlike bits were not endorsed. Most of Mosaic Law was done away with, though some modern Christians still cherry-pick from it to support their prejudices. A helpful guideline - look at what Jesus actually said, then figure out what the message ought to be.

And by the way, one needn't be tolerant of intolerance to support tolerance. Extremism in anything is detrimental to the belief system. A belief in tolerance is no different.

Did you ever once see Jesus criticize the theological stance of Israel? Throwing out the entire Old Testament is ridiculous. If Jesus didn't actively correct it, you can assume it still stands. And if you think Jesus was going to countermand anything God ever said, you have a woefully flawed understanding of the Bible. Jesus was perfectly obedient to God's will, and I don't remember him saying God was wrong for ordering cities razed.

A helpful guideline- I've studied this for a long time. The Bible, I mean. I've done debates with leading members of other churches. I am more than a little aware of what Jesus said, and the relationship of the new and Old Testaments to one another.

Thank God that Josef "the German Shepherd" Ratzlinger will die soon enough and that the Church will end up electing someone that's actually human to its top. That or it'll disappear out of failure to adapt. We will win, Mitanni. We're not "Christian-haters", or "backsliders", we are the future. Your opinions belong in the same place the Inquisition does: In the past.

We will win and there's nothing you or your twisted idea of a God can do about it.

Nothing.

And that makes you furious enough to come here to spout garbage online, because that's all you can do, from your position of utter and complete powerlessness.

Pitiful.

Actually sorry to disturb your fantasy but no, that won't happen. In worst case the Church simply moves to Africa and South/Central America, and Asia (the way conversions are going it will soon have a large congregation there as well, Mongolia just opened its first chapel, and China Catholicism is reaching the 1% mark I believe and growing at fast rates).

So no the powerlessness may be in Europe and mayhaps even one day in the US, but the rest of the world is not of a like mind as you. For many South Americans and Africans the RCC is not strict enough with the few exceptions it does allow.

Of course if you wish to continue dreaming that the Church is going to be defeated in your lifetime to a small and pitiful congregation, be my guest, I do not judge the personal beliefs or fantasies other carry.

Actually sorry to disturb your fantasy but no, that won't happen. In worst case the Church simply moves to Africa and South/Central America, and Asia (the way conversions are going it will soon have a large congregation there as well, Mongolia just opened its first chapel, and China Catholicism is reaching the 1% mark I believe and growing at fast rates).

So no the powerlessness may be in Europe and mayhaps even one day in the US, but the rest of the world is not of a like mind as you. For many South Americans and Africans the RCC is not strict enough with the few exceptions it does allow.

Of course if you wish to continue dreaming that the Church is going to be defeated in your lifetime to a small and pitiful congregation, be my guest, I do not judge the personal beliefs or fantasies other carry.

Oh, I don't think it'll end in my lifetime, I said that its values will change. And we in South America are way more liberal than it seems, at least Brazil and Argentina.

Further, it may not even end, but it sure won't conform to Mitanni's ideals either. :p

Would you PLEASE start to read my posts and stop putting words in my mouth? Thank you so much.
I never claimed he was a homophobe. But he is intolerant of gay marriage. Big difference.
Homos ok, homos marrying not ok = intolerance towards gay marriage.
Do you need me to spell it out again?



Canada is not forcing any churches to perform the marriages, they will be performed by the state only.
The fact that the churches had monopolised the institution for several centuries doesn't mean they can go on doing so. These days, states perform legal marriages, not churches. It's no longer in his jurisdiction to deny anybody a legal marriage.

You claimed he was prejudiced, which is equivalent to homophobic I believe.

No I think you should read a bit closer, or re-read what exactly is going on, he is simply against the use of the word marriage to be used to describe the union between homosexuals. A simple word used as a label or description does not comply with a social right, maybe it is trivial to you but no to the Pope. As I said where was the legitimacy that governments at least in most western countries do marriage on their accord questioned? No where, he merely requested that the sanctity of marriage be kept, which means find a new word for it. I mean homosexuals already opt to be called gay, to differentiate themselves what makes the label for a union so much harder to swallow?

Well you could spell it all out, but I would advise getting a mirror because I am not the one who has to see the obvious.

Would you PLEASE start to read my posts and stop putting words in my mouth? Thank you so much.
I never claimed he was a homophobe. But he is intolerant of gay marriage. Big difference.
Homos ok, homos marrying not ok = intolerance towards gay marriage.
Do you need me to spell it out again?

Canada is not forcing any churches to perform the marriages, they will be performed by the state only.
The fact that the churches had monopolised the institution for several centuries doesn't mean they can go on doing so. These days, states perform legal marriages, not churches. It's no longer in his jurisdiction to deny anybody a legal marriage.

Look, does the US talk nice about countries it disagrees with? Did we have any communication with Iran until recently, at least direct communication? Don't countries regularly ostracize other nations, taking as example the refusal of many nations to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation?

Now, since the Pope is a religious leader, and not a secular one (don't know where you get that idea), he does not have seperate responsibilites. That means, as the representative of the Vatican and the Catholic church, he cannot recognize an institution that goes against his nations/groups beliefs. If he remained silent, that could be construed as approval. All nations do it. He just has a religious aspect to worry about that other nations don't. That's why he has to condemn the practices in other countries. Otherwise, it could be construed as approval.

That's why we don't negotiate with terrorists in the US, why we didn't have diplomatic relations with Iran for so long, why we didn't want to recognize the People's Republic of China for so long, and I could go on.

,he is simply against the use of the word marriage to be used to describe the union between homosexuals.

In that case, somebody should inform the pope that language works how it works regardless of his or his God's will. The people may say "civil union" as much as they like, but each person referring to such an union will refer to those two men or women that MARRIED.

And neither he nor his God can do a thing.

You claimed he was prejudiced, which is equivalent to homophobic I believe.

I never said he was prejudiced towards homosexuals, I said he was prejudiced. Please do make the effort to actually read what I write here.

No I think you should read a bit closer, or re-read what exactly is going on, he is simply against the use of the word marriage to be used to describe the union between homosexuals. A simple word used as a label or description does not comply with a social right, maybe it is trivial to you but no to the Pope. As I said where was the legitimacy that governments at least in most western countries do marriage on their accord questioned? No where, he merely requested that the sanctity of marriage be kept, which means find a new word for it. I mean homosexuals already opt to be called gay, to differentiate themselves what makes the label for a union so much harder to swallow?


Invent a new word for the same legal process, so his feelings aren't hurt because he happens to use the same word? If he wants to differenciateso hard, let him come up with a new word for his religious marriages. :rolleyes:


Well you could spell it all out, but I would advise getting a mirror because I am not the one who has to see the obvious.

Yeah, right. Because I'm the one who keeps putting words in your mouth.

Look, does the US talk nice about countries it disagrees with? Did we have any communication with Iran until recently, at least direct communication? Don't countries regularly ostracize other nations, taking as example the refusal of many nations to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation?

Now, since the Pope is a religious leader, and not a secular one (don't know where you get that idea), he does not have seperate responsibilites. That means, as the representative of the Vatican and the Catholic church, he cannot recognize an institution that goes against his nations/groups beliefs. If he remained silent, that could be construed as approval. All nations do it. He just has a religious aspect to worry about that other nations don't. That's why he has to condemn the practices in other countries. Otherwise, it could be construed as approval.

That's why we don't negotiate with terrorists in the US, why we didn't have diplomatic relations with Iran for so long, why we didn't want to recognize the People's Republic of China for so long, and I could go on.

Which is also the reason I would, if I were the Canadian prime minister, kindly inform him that I think the Church should perform gay marriages and ask him how it feels now that I was the one that gave him opinions on HIS job.

Wow... Rather hateful in your opinions there.

BTW, what about our islamic friends?

Nice opinions.

If you had bothered to read my original post, you would KNOW that I had commented on your "islamic friends," where I described your "counterpats from Mecca." It would be easier for me if you were at all capable of processing opinions contrary to your own.



Who ever said they aren't? (Never did understand where you people get that idea from? :confused: ) Opinion which many disagree with. No, it really doesn't... :|

Again, all opinion. Hope you weren't trying to make a point or something.

If you had ever read the Bible, you would know that it is Christianity that says all of these things. Please try to put more thought into your lifestyle choices; if you read the Bible, really read it all the way through, you will lose your faith. I sure did.

Did you ever once see Jesus criticize the theological stance of Israel? Throwing out the entire Old Testament is ridiculous. If Jesus didn't actively correct it, you can assume it still stands. And if you think Jesus was going to countermand anything God ever said, you have a woefully flawed understanding of the Bible. Jesus was perfectly obedient to God's will, and I don't remember him saying God was wrong for ordering cities razed.

A helpful guideline- I've studied this for a long time. The Bible, I mean. I've done debates with leading members of other churches. I am more than a little aware of what Jesus said, and the relationship of the new and Old Testaments to one another.

I said nothing of throwing out the whole OT, but Jesus did overturn a number of OT laws. We've all seen the "Open Letter to Dr. Laura," which lists a number of these things. More commonly, though, he revised how the faithful ought to conduct themselves. Don't try to pull rank on me because I've studied too, and frankly, I don't see butting heads with the leaders of most churches as being all that impressive. Most Christians haven't a clue about their own faith - leaders are merely more outgoing sheep.

Which is also the reason I would, if I were the Canadian prime minister, kindly inform him that I think the Church should perform gay marriages and ask him how it feels now that I was the one that gave him opinions on HIS job.

So what if he did? I wouldn't b up in arms about the insult to the Catholic church and the Pope. Well, first, I'm not even Catholic. But anyways, that would also be a rather juvenile response.

I said nothing of throwing out the whole OT, but Jesus did overturn a number of OT laws. More commonly, though, he revised how the faithful ought to conduct themselves. We've all seen the "Open Letter to Dr. Laura," which lists a number of these things. Don't try to pull rank on me because I've studied too, and frankly, I don't see butting heads with the leaders of most churches as being all that impressive. Most Christians haven't a clue about their own faith - leaders are merely more outgoing sheep.

And yet you didn't answer the points I made about the parts of the OT Jesus DIDN'T overturn. Thank you and come again.

At least acknowledge when you miss something.

So what if he did? I wouldn't b up in arms about the insult to the Catholic church and the Pope. Well, first, I'm not even Catholic. But anyways, that would also be a rather juvenile response.

Well, I might not express that response in THOSE terms, but it'd be among those lines. And he'd be a fool to act in an unreasonable manner and expect a reasonable response.

Look, does the US talk nice about countries it disagrees with? Did we have any communication with Iran until recently, at least direct communication? Don't countries regularly ostracize other nations, taking as example the refusal of many nations to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation?

Now, since the Pope is a religious leader, and not a secular one (don't know where you get that idea), he does not have seperate responsibilites. That means, as the representative of the Vatican and the Catholic church, he cannot recognize an institution that goes against his nations/groups beliefs. If he remained silent, that could be construed as approval. All nations do it. He just has a religious aspect to worry about that other nations don't. That's why he has to condemn the practices in other countries. Otherwise, it could be construed as approval.

That's why we don't negotiate with terrorists in the US, why we didn't have diplomatic relations with Iran for so long, why we didn't want to recognize the People's Republic of China for so long, and I could go on.

You are mixing up the responsibilities he has as religious leader and as representative of the Vatican as a state.

As representative of a state, he can criticise other countries' politics as long as he likes.
As a religious representative, he can preach to his followers, but he can't attack legislation.
He criticised legilation in his role as religious leader, and that's my problem here.

You are mixing up the responsibilities he has as religious leader and as representative of the Vatican as a state.

As representative of a state, he can criticise other countries' politics as long as he likes.
As a religious representative, he can preach to his followers, but he can't attack legislation.
He criticised legilation in his role as religious leader, and that's my problem here.

There is no seperation. The Vatican is a religious state. Any acceptance of practices contrary to doctrine by the leader of that state would be construed as acceptance in a religious sense.

There is no seperation. The Vatican is a religious state. Any acceptance of practices contrary to doctrine by the leader of that state would be construed as acceptance in a religious sense.

She is not talking about the Vatican only.

She is talking about a leader of the state as in the rest of the world.

Well, I might not express that response in THOSE terms, but it'd be among those lines. And he'd be a fool to act in an unreasonable manner and expect a reasonable response.

He didn't act in a unreasonable manner. Politically, every country has used the same actions he used to show disapproval. Speaking out publicly and refusing to carry on diplomatic relations are common political tactics. it's no different for him.

Thank God that Josef "the German Shepherd" Ratzlinger will die soon enough and that the Church will end up electing someone that's actually human to its top. That or it'll disappear out of failure to adapt. We will win, Mitanni. We're not "Christian-haters", or "backsliders", we are the future. Your opinions belong in the same place the Inquisition does: In the past.

We will win and there's nothing you or your twisted idea of a God can do about it.

Nothing.

And that makes you furious enough to come here to spout garbage online, because that's all you can do, from your position of utter and complete powerlessness.

Pitiful.

Honey, you're so full of yourself you make a Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade balloon look like a flat tire :p

The only thing you're likely to win is the booby prize for "Most Pretentious Display of Self-Righteousness".

And my Church has been around for 2000 years, and it will be around long after you are dead, buried and part of the food chain.

As for "powerlessness", every time I vote I exercise power. And since I've been on the winning side the last four elections, I think it's pretty clear who's in a position of "utter and complete powerlessness".

Now, go back to your little circle of fellow-travelers, so you can keep telling yourselves how right you are and how everyone in the world agrees with you.

Oh, one more thing: If I send you a tape, could you make a recording of you singing "Tomorrow Belongs to Me"? I'd love to have something to remind me of you when things get boring ;)

There is no seperation. The Vatican is a religious state. Any acceptance of practices contrary to doctrine by the leader of that state would be construed as acceptance in a religious sense.

Regardless, assuming he starts favoring civil unions with equal rights, the fact of the matter is it'll be called marriage. Not by the government, but by anyone that prefers saying "Tom and Jon married" as opposed to saying "Tom and Jon united civilly". And since "married" is easier and gets the message across, it will be used. Linguistics 101, and there's nothing he or his god can do about it.

She is not talking about the Vatican only.

She is talking about a leader of the state as in the rest of the world.

It doesn't matter. If the Pope did not publicly state his disapproval, politically speaking that would be akin to acceptance. Other nations have done the same thing many times to avoid showing acceptance of another nation's policies, as I already provided examples for.


It's not personal, but politically, he HAS to publicly stand against it. Same reason the US doesn't get all buddy buddy with N Korea. We don't approve of their policies, and having diplomatic relations can be construed as approval.

And yet you didn't answer the points I made about the parts of the OT Jesus DIDN'T overturn. Thank you and come again.

At least acknowledge when you miss something.

I see little point - you clearly see value in the words while I see value in the message. Considering the words are flawed, I'm happy to leave your position - Jesus message was not one of violence, prejudice, or political machinations. Just because he did not condemn every instance of these things, why would I interpret that as endorsement of them?

Honey, you're so full of yourself you make a Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade balloon look like a flat tire :p

The only thing you're likely to win is the booby prize for "Most Pretentious Display of Self-Righteousness".

And my Church has been around for 2000 years, and it will be around long after you are dead, buried and part of the food chain.

As for "powerlessness", every time I vote I exercise power. And since I've been on the winning side the last four elections, I think it's pretty clear who's in a position of "utter and complete powerlessness".

Now, go back to your little circle of fellow-travelers, so you can keep telling yourselves how right you are and how everyone in the world agrees with you.

Oh, one more thing: If I send you a tape, could you make a recording of you singing "The Future Belongs to Me"? I'd love to have something to remind me of you when things get boring ;)

There's life outside the US. And the liberal leaders are gaining more and more power, including where I live and vote. And Bush is being revealed as the fraud he is more and more. And your church so far failed to have any actual political influence in the last 20 years aside from ONE issue in Italy. And even then by using boycott tactics in the referendum.

And sure, you can send me a tape. I'll use it to tape several accounts of happily married gay people and send it back to you, do not worry. And you can even use that tape to... well, just use your imagination. I always thought that those people that were so much against gays were actually hiding something...

[CENTER]Oh, dear. I guess we're all bound for Hell now - *snip*


I could have told you that! :p

Maybe your leaders should tell the panzer pope that maybe when the Vatican makes good with the Duplessis Orphans then they will listen to his morality talk.

I could have told you that! :p

Maybe your leaders should tell the panzer pope that maybe when the Vatican makes good with the Duplessis Orphans then they will listen to his morality talk.

Hey, don't call him Panzer Pope!

German Shepherd or Deutscher Schäferhund is funnier! :D

And sure, you can send me a tape. I'll use it to tape several accounts of happily married gay people and send it back to you, do not worry. And you can even use that tape to... well, just use your imagination. I always thought that those people that were so much against gays were actually hiding something...

Please do. I'll be sure to forward it to your favorite Christian, Fred Phelps. He'll find a good use for it, I'm sure. In any event, as for "married gay people," you can call a pig a pigeon, but that won't make it fly.

And as for "hiding something," looks like you're wrong again. Are you getting used to it yet? However, if you happen to be a normal, i.e. straight, female, I will gladly teach you the meaning of respect ;)

BTW: On second thought, instead of "Tomorrow Belongs to Me," why don't you record "Oceania Tis for Thee"? I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm implying you're a Nazi, like your side does anytime someone strays from your orthodoxy. And remember: "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

Please do. I'll be sure to forward it to your favorite Christian, Fred Phelps. He'll find a good use for it, I'm sure. In any event, as for "married gay people," you can call a pig a pigeon, but that won't make it fly.

And as for "hiding something," looks like you're wrong again. Are you getting used to it yet? However, if you happen to be a normal, i.e. straight, female, I will gladly teach you the meaning of respect ;)

BTW: On second thought, instead of "Tomorrow Belongs to Me," why don't you record "Oceania Tis for Thee"? I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm implying you're a Nazi, like your side does anytime someone strays from your orthodoxy. And remember: "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

1- I'm male.

2- Even if I were female or gay I'd not touch you with a 10-inch pole. And nice way to overcompensate with some bravado about your sex life that nobody here needed to know. Also, gays and lesbians are normal, and there's nothing you can do about that.

3- You are the one that supports a church that inserts dogma in the state and force-feeds its belief upon people. I STUDY dystopias, and your view is the one close to 1984, considering it is the one in which an organization runs the state regardless of the will of the people.

4- It will work like a marriage. It has love involved like a marriage. It has the same rights and duties of a marriage. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck. It's a duck. And there's nothing your pope or your god can do about it.

What do you expect? He's Emperor Palpatine in a tall hat! He's establishing the beginnings of the Empire! Has no one else noticed the striking resemblance?

Begoner21;11656738']He is simply following what is says in the Bible, as twisted as what it says may be. Do you expect him to publicly burn the Bible and say that you can have sex whenever you want, with whomever you want, and that you can kill the resulting baby?

Arguably the killing of the baby is allowed by the Bible, yes. Even as a baby, not just as a fetus.

What do you expect? He's Emperor Palpatine in a tall hat! He's establishing the beginnings of the Empire! Has no one else noticed the striking resemblance?

To me, he looks like someone that forgot to die. I mean, really, the guy looks like he's decomposing.

What do you expect? He's Emperor Palpatine in a tall hat! He's establishing the beginnings of the Empire! Has no one else noticed the striking resemblance?

Withered, sallow and outright EVIL look? Check.

Surrounded by men in red? Check.

I never take the pope seriously, especially since this guy was in Hitler youth.

That's very mature of you. Ignore the fact that virtually everyone of his age was conscripted into the Hitler Juegend.

Please do. I'll be sure to forward it to your favorite Christian, Fred Phelps. He'll find a good use for it, I'm sure.


That means what? Why even bring him up? Child you have to work a little more on your attitude if you are trying to offend.

In any event, as for "married gay people," you can call a pig a pigeon, but that won't make it fly.


That's true. They have to put in more work to catch the 60 % divorse rate that we hetros have work so hard to obtain.


And as for "hiding something," looks like you're wrong again. Are you getting used to it yet?


Ok. Prove it sweety.


However, if you happen to be a normal, i.e. straight, female, I will gladly teach you the meaning of respect ;)

BTW: On second thought, instead of "Tomorrow Belongs to Me," why don't you record "Oceania Tis for Thee"? I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm implying you're a Nazi, like your side does anytime someone strays from your orthodoxy. And remember: "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

Hey. Good idea. You can lead it with a pledge to the christian flag.

1- I'm male.

2- Even if I were female or gay I'd not touch you with a 10-inch pole. And nice way to overcompensate with some bravado about your sex life that nobody here needed to know. Also, gays and lesbians are normal, and there's nothing you can do about that.

3- You are the one that supports a church that inserts dogma in the state and force-feeds its belief upon people. I STUDY dystopias, and your view is the one close to 1984, considering it is the one in which an organization runs the state regardless of the will of the people.


Gee, I just love the way you say "there's nothing you can do about it." Makes your eventual defeat so much more satisfying :D

And excuse me for somehow having the idea you were a normal, straight female. Must have been something you wrote. Oh well, my bad. Now we both have disgusting images to get out of our heads. BTW: nice try inserting that "ten inch pole" reference. Now who's overcompensating?

4- It will work like a marriage. It has love involved like a marriage. It has the same rights and duties of a marriage. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck. It's a duck. And there's nothing your pope or your god can do about it.

It has been consistently rejected by voters, at least in the US, whenever the issue has appeared before them rather than imperious judicial would-be legislators, and will continue to be rejected by voters, unlike marriage. It has no possibility of producing joint offspring of the two so-called "married" parties, unlike a marriage. It has no possibility of providing father and mother figures to children, unlike a marriage. It oinks, it stinks, it wallows around in mud. It's not a pigeon, it's a pig. And with respect to the latter two points, as you are fond of saying, "there's nothing you can do about it."

Oh, and for someone who claims not to be gay, you certainly have a lot invested in the issue. Maybe you're hiding something, eh?

Hey. Good idea. You can lead it with a pledge to the christian flag.

If you're trying to be insulting, try again :p

It has been consistently rejected by voters, at least in the US, whenever the issue has appeared before them rather than imperious judicial would-be legislators,


Eww the legislating from the bench argument. Yawn.

and will continue to be rejected by voters,
Just like the attitudes that were held before womens sufferage and civil rights.

Times are changing sweety. When I was young, you were hard pressed to see an openly gay individual.

Now, few people even look twice.

unlike marriage. It has no possibility of producing joint offspring of the two so-called "married" parties,

So. Many hetros get married and have no desire to have children.

unlike a marriage. It has no possibility of providing father and mother figures to children,
And how many children are raised with a single parent?

How many kids sit in the systems waiting for adoption?


unlike a marriage. It oinks, it stinks, it wallows around in mud.


60% divorse rate does smell doesn't it.


It's not a pigeon, it's a pig. And with respect to the latter two points, as you are fond of saying, "there's nothing you can do about it."


:D You going to eat a bullet when the ebil icky gays get married.

Oh, and for someone who claims not to be gay, you certainly have a lot invested in the issue. Maybe you're hiding something, eh?

My how childish. A dick reference and a gay reference.

Yawn.

Gee, I just love the way you say "there's nothing you can do about it." Makes your eventual defeat so much more satisfying :D

And excuse me for somehow having the idea you were a normal, straight female. Must have been something you wrote. Oh well, my bad. Now we both have disgusting images to get out of our heads. BTW: nice try inserting that "ten inch pole" reference. Now who's overcompensating?



It has been consistently rejected by voters, at least in the US, whenever the issue has appeared before them rather than imperious judicial would-be legislators, and will continue to be rejected by voters, unlike marriage. It has no possibility of producing joint offspring of the two so-called "married" parties, unlike a marriage. It has no possibility of providing father and mother figures to children, unlike a marriage. It oinks, it stinks, it wallows around in mud. It's not a pigeon, it's a pig. And with respect to the latter two points, as you are fond of saying, "there's nothing you can do about it."

Oh, and for someone who claims not to be gay, you certainly have a lot invested in the issue. Maybe you're hiding something, eh?

1- YOU are overcompensating, due to the fact that not touching you with a 10-foot pole would mean I find you disgusting, as opposed to any mention about my penis. Oh, and replace "inch" by "foot", preferably getting your peers to switch to metric system while at it. :p As in an actual, wooden, 10-foot pole that would keep your repulsive self away from me, ideally, if I were female.

2- Your pope shows a lot of interest in this issue. Maybe he's hiding something. Well, actually he's hiding far worse things, considering all the cover-ups the Church keeps doing in paedophilia cases. You know, as opposed to consenting adults, the priests you follow seem to enjoy more contact with the younger folks...

3- Sucks to be the US, but it is already allowed in other parts of the world. And get your psychology facts straight! Father figure and mother figure have nothing to do with gender, it's a function that two (or even one) people can perform. And they can always adopt. Finally, by that logic, two people can't marry if one is sterile. Not that it'd surprise me if you defend this kind of restriction, but just food for thought.

Maybe your leaders should tell the panzer pope that maybe when the Vatican makes good with the Duplessis Orphans then they will listen to his morality talk.

What a waste of perfectly good coffee I just blew out my nose, subject as I was to a fit of sudden laughter while reading this and sipping a cuppa joe. You bastard funnyman, you.

Probably if it would be completely secular in word, action and type that Pope wouldn't care twice.

*BUZZ* Ooooh I'm sorry. But the Pope is in fact strongly opposed to even secular civil unions. But thanks for playing our game and enjoy your parting gifts.

http://uk.gay.com/headlines/8630

"Tuesday June 7 2005

In his first pronouncement since his election as pope, Benedict XVI condemned same-sex unions as fake and threatening to the future of the family yesterday..."

Standard Catholic doctrine. No real surprise.

*shrugs*

Exactly. Now, if he'd said, "FTW, I should care what they do in Canada?" that would be a surprise.

Fine then he is against homosexual sanctioned unions. Well surprise, surprise so is the vast majority of the world.

And as said before he is the fusion of a head of state/religious leader/monarch/military leader (if you count the swiss guard) all in one. And he exercised his right as a state leader to criticize the policies of another nation, and since he was also a religious leader he also had the right to question the religious morals present. If you think he is too powerfull by being able to do such, or you think it is wrong, too bad, maybe try convincing him to castrate his power as a state leader to fit your needs and wants, otherwise kindly take it as it stands.

In fact the Vatican is even in the UN, goes to show its legitimacy as a sovereign nation.

is it me or is Pope Benedict a huge dick?
Oh it is just you.

It has been consistently rejected by voters, at least in the US, whenever the issue has appeared before them rather than imperious judicial would-be legislators, and will continue to be rejected by voters, unlike marriage.

The obvious flaw in this argument - things change. Sorry to burst your bubble, but this would have been a non-issue only a few decades ago, and today it is a highly contentious point of debate.

"It has no possibility of producing joint offspring of the two so-called "married" parties, unlike a marriage."

As if this is solely reserved for marriage - high-school sweethearts rejoice, Linda Sue needn't get that abortion, because since you're not married she's not pregnant! Let's not forget the infertile couples who marry every day, either, unless you would rather do so to make your point.

"It has no possibility of providing father and mother figures to children, unlike a marriage."

Actually, it does - and more than that, studies have found that children do not actually need both in the home, because they will find replacements in their social circles. Coaches, priests, uncles, teachers, and the like make perfectly fine substitutions. I suppose you've been writing your Congressman to get children removed from single-parent households? No?

"It oinks, it stinks, it wallows around in mud. It's not a pigeon, it's a pig. And with respect to the latter two points, as you are fond of saying, "there's nothing you can do about it."

Except to point out who really wallows in the mud - the mud of ignorance, that is. All you have are rationalizations. You do not want homosexuals to have equal rights, so you will find innumerable silly, superficial, fallacious reasons to disallow them to get them. So, what horrible things will befall a nation that allows gay marriage? I've never actually head a really reasonable consequence, beyond "OMG< it's not really marriage!"

Do tell.

it really puzzles me... if the catholics want to abide by certain restrictions they place upon themselves... then let it be... why must they follow YOUR liberal values? they voice thier unhappiness over certain liberal values and they do have a right to do so and you can CHOOSE not to be catholic if you do no tlike thier 'restrictions' if you do not like a country that makes abortion illegal why dont you just move? if you do not like the values of the religion why dun u juz not follow it? you do have a choice no one is forcing you, yet you criticize and curse people who feel that there is a line to be drawn in this immoral world that we have created. it is the same with the Muslim women in France who CHOOSE to wear the hijab, it is ok for women to CHOOSE NOT to wear it but it is WRONG for them to CHOOSE to wear it.. yet you all talk about choice and giving women CHOICE but yet when they choose something contrary to you, you deny them that choice? if you think lving by your own values and creating your own values is freedom and the way forward... well do remember Hitler lived by his own values too he didnt like relgion mind you.... so did mussolini... and soviet Russia...they were athiest.. they too created thier own rules and followed thier own values very soon it is gg to be alrite to kill... rape... i mean in this issue of rightsm when you exercise your right, you deny another person that right. you exercise your right to have a gun, your neighbour loses his right to live in a gun free neighbourhood, a pregnant teen exercises her right to abortion, she takes away the right of a child to live mind you the right to live is a basic right in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. you people are consumed by selfishness and extreme indvidualism that society at large doesnt matter anymore as long as you get what you want and when people refuse to be indoctrinated with your values you force it upon them and say that thier culture is primitive or oppressive. apparently westerners easily forget the 500 years of western imperialism, 'mission civilitarice' and it is still happening today. If people want some order and limits albeit with some concessions to personal freedom so be it, it surely beats the chaos that this world is going to be in if everyone is granted complete freedom, because with freedom comes responsibility, and humanity always falls short when it comes to responsibility.

if you do not like a country that makes abortion illegal why dont you just move?
:rolleyes:

I thought Ratzinger was known for being very conservative?
He was the leader of what was once called "The Inquisition" when he wasn't the Pope.

He was never going to allow people to use contraeception, or have abortions etc. and that's not going to change.

it really puzzles me... if the catholics want to abide by certain restrictions they place upon themselves... then let it be... why must they follow YOUR liberal values? they voice thier unhappiness over certain liberal values and they do have a right to do so and you can CHOOSE not to be catholic if you do no tlike thier 'restrictions' if you do not like a country that makes abortion illegal why dont you just move? if you do not like the values of the religion why dun u juz not follow it? you do have a choice no one is forcing you, yet you criticize and curse people who feel that there is a line to be drawn in this immoral world that we have created. it is the same with the Muslim women in France who CHOOSE to wear the hijab, it is ok for women to CHOOSE NOT to wear it but it is WRONG for them to CHOOSE to wear it.. yet you all talk about choice and giving women CHOICE but yet when they choose something contrary to you, you deny them that choice? if you think lving by your own values and creating your own values is freedom and the way forward... well do remember Hitler lived by his own values too he didnt like relgion mind you.... so did mussolini... and soviet Russia...they were athiest.. they too created thier own rules and followed thier own values very soon it is gg to be alrite to kill... rape... i mean in this issue of rightsm when you exercise your right, you deny another person that right. you exercise your right to have a gun, your neighbour loses his right to live in a gun free neighbourhood, a pregnant teen exercises her right to abortion, she takes away the right of a child to live mind you the right to live is a basic right in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. you people are consumed by selfishness and extreme indvidualism that society at large doesnt matter anymore as long as you get what you want and when people refuse to be indoctrinated with your values you force it upon them and say that thier culture is primitive or oppressive. apparently westerners easily forget the 500 years of western imperialism, 'mission civilitarice' and it is still happening today. If people want some order and limits albeit with some concessions to personal freedom so be it, it surely beats the chaos that this world is going to be in if everyone is granted complete freedom, because with freedom comes responsibility, and humanity always falls short when it comes to responsibility.

See, that's why we have something called "seperation of church and state". Look around you, almost every single country in the Western world has a piece of legislation that ensures that organised religion can have no direct influence on political desicions.

Nobody's forcing the church to marry gay people. Nobody's even forcing gay people to marry. This discussion is about the state giving everybody the same options and the same possiblities. It's an issue that has absolutely nothing, zero, zilch, nada, rien, gar nix to do with any religious institution, and yet they choose to meddle and to try and tell governments what to do.

Oh, and I'm fine with Muslim women wearing a veil if they choose to... as long as they don't do so when representing an official institution, for example as a school teacher. Same goes for the pope, really. He can deny gays the right to get married in churches, but back when good ol' JR tried to move against legislation in Germany that banned crucifixes from classrooms, he was overstepping his boundaries, same as he does now for telling governments how to run their countries.

it really puzzles me... if the catholics want to abide by certain restrictions they place upon themselves... then let it be... why must they follow YOUR liberal values? they voice thier unhappiness over certain liberal values and they do have a right to do so and you can CHOOSE not to be catholic if you do no tlike thier 'restrictions' if you do not like a country that makes abortion illegal why dont you just move? if you do not like the values of the religion why dun u juz not follow it? you do have a choice no one is forcing you, yet you criticize and curse people who feel that there is a line to be drawn in this immoral world that we have created. it is the same with the Muslim women in France who CHOOSE to wear the hijab, it is ok for women to CHOOSE NOT to wear it but it is WRONG for them to CHOOSE to wear it.. yet you all talk about choice and giving women CHOICE but yet when they choose something contrary to you, you deny them that choice? if you think lving by your own values and creating your own values is freedom and the way forward... well do remember Hitler lived by his own values too he didnt like relgion mind you.... so did mussolini... and soviet Russia...they were athiest.. they too created thier own rules and followed thier own values very soon it is gg to be alrite to kill... rape... i mean in this issue of rightsm when you exercise your right, you deny another person that right. you exercise your right to have a gun, your neighbour loses his right to live in a gun free neighbourhood, a pregnant teen exercises her right to abortion, she takes away the right of a child to live mind you the right to live is a basic right in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. you people are consumed by selfishness and extreme indvidualism that society at large doesnt matter anymore as long as you get what you want and when people refuse to be indoctrinated with your values you force it upon them and say that thier culture is primitive or oppressive. apparently westerners easily forget the 500 years of western imperialism, 'mission civilitarice' and it is still happening today. If people want some order and limits albeit with some concessions to personal freedom so be it, it surely beats the chaos that this world is going to be in if everyone is granted complete freedom, because with freedom comes responsibility, and humanity always falls short when it comes to responsibility.

It literally hurts my eyes to read this.

I thought Ratzinger was known for being very conservative?

Very. When he was still archbishop of Munich, it's fair to say that a good 60% of the population hated and despised him.

I remember he was trying to get legislation going to prohibit the nudist beaches on the Isar, and even the nudist places in the Englischer Garten!

It literally hurts my eyes to read this.

Took me quite some time to get through it, too. Some people haven't heard of the benefits of punctuation and paragraphs ;)

Hey, don't call him Panzer Pope!

German Shepherd or Deutscher Schäferhund is funnier! :D
Hey! Be a little more imaginative when beating down on the Pope.

While he might be German (or used to be German, or whatever he's now) he certainly does not represent, nor speak for, me and many others.

I'm a Protestant and he has no say over me, while He does have an influence on me, but I don't see how ridiculing him because he's German makes your point any better.

Hey! Be a little more imaginative when beating down on the Pope.

While he might be German (or used to be German, or whatever he's now) he certainly does not represent, nor speak for, me and many others.

I'm a Protestant and he has no say over me, while He does have an influence on me, but I don't see how ridiculing him because he's German makes your point any better.

Precisely it is just to show that Heikoku is racist nothing else.

Hey! Be a little more imaginative when beating down on the Pope.

While he might be German (or used to be German, or whatever he's now) he certainly does not represent, nor speak for, me and many others.

I'm a Protestant and he has no say over me, while He does have an influence on me, but I don't see how ridiculing him because he's German makes your point any better.

Meh... I'm German, and I'm honestly ashamed to share my country of origin with this guy. But then, there were plenty of nasty Germans making center stage in world politics in history, so I kind of got used to the feeling by now.

*shrugs

See, that's why we have something called "seperation of church and state". Look around you, almost every single country in the Western world has a piece of legislation that ensures that organised religion can have no direct influence on political desicions.

Nobody's forcing the church to marry gay people. Nobody's even forcing gay people to marry. This discussion is about the state giving everybody the same options and the same possiblities. It's an issue that has absolutely nothing, zero, zilch, nada, rien, gar nix to do with any religious institution, and yet they choose to meddle and to try and tell governments what to do.

Oh, and I'm fine with Muslim women wearing a veil if they choose to... as long as they don't do so when representing an official institution, for example as a school teacher. Same goes for the pope, really. He can deny gays the right to get married in churches, but back when good ol' JR tried to move against legislation in Germany that banned crucifixes from classrooms, he was overstepping his boundaries, same as he does now for telling governments how to run their countries.

You seem to missunderstand the concept of seperation of church and state. What it was meant for was that the STATE does not interfere in the rights of the church, at least that was the reason it was originally created. Since as we saw in Britain when the government gets involved in religion it gets bloody. So it was decreed that the government stays out of religion and puts no ensueing laws or restrictions on it that are not within its mandate.

As for the Pope. Constructive critiscism of another nation is his right as a sovereign leader and his right to free speech. So please grow up and look it into the eye, he was doing nothing wrong. He would only be doing something wrong IF, and on IF, he would meddle by calling all Catholics to forceably overthrow the government, but oral criticism of one law passed by a nation hardly constitutes that farce you are making out of it.

Meh... I'm German, and I'm honestly ashamed to share my country of origin with this guy. But then, there were plenty of nasty Germans making center stage in world politics in history, so I kind of got used to the feeling by now.

*shrugs

I'm not. I'm just tired of others reducing my country to 12 years of dark history and a Pope, a Bavarian none the less. He's the Pope now, though he definitely is not speaking for me or my country.

Why should I be ashamed of others' actions? I didn't do anything wrong.

Meh... I'm German, and I'm honestly ashamed to share my country of origin with this guy. But then, there were plenty of nasty Germans making center stage in world politics in history, so I kind of got used to the feeling by now.

*shrugs


So now the Pope is nasty? What makes your views superior to his? You are without doubt one of the most obnoxious, and prejudiced people I have seen on forums so far. I stand for a free tolerant democratic state where everyone is allowed to hold the views they wish, you seem to wish for a state where freedom of speech shouldn't exist unless it fits your ultra-liberal views.

Also your post is hypocritical, any major nation had people in the center stage who were/are less then ideal, so by what standard should all Germans hold your views and work to appropriate them?

Well the Pope as repeatedly stated would not be ashamed that you come from a similar nation as him, he is above such triviliaties as seperate beliefs or prejudice. His first written work as a Pope was around the topic of love and living in peace with those next to you. Or is this way of thought something you disagree with?

Well no need to worry I suppose for you. The Next pope will probably be South American or African, then you have nothing to be ashamed about anymore. But seriously the small mindness and bigotedness of some people just upsets me in their judgemental ways, I am ashamed as a German myself that you come from my nation, please stay in Ireland.

You seem to missunderstand the concept of seperation of church and state. What it was meant for was that the STATE does not interfere in the rights of the church, at least that was the reason it was originally created. Since as we saw in Britain when the government gets involved in religion it gets bloody. So it was decreed that the government stays out of religion and puts no ensueing laws or restrictions on it that are not within its mandate.

I don't misunderstand it. The original intent may vary from country to country (in Germany, for example, the seperation was created explicitly to keep riests out of politics, and to stop them from preaching politics to their congregations), but the result is the equivalent of a restraining order. Church has to keep away from politics, government has to keep away from church.

As for the Pope. Constructive critiscism of another nation is his right as a sovereign leader and his right to free speech. So please grow up and look it into the eye, he was doing nothing wrong. He would only be doing something wrong IF, and on IF, he would meddle by calling all Catholics to forceably overthrow the government, but oral criticism of one law passed by a nation hardly constitutes that farce you are making out of it.

He called out to the "catholic politicians in Canada", therefore speaking as a religious leader, not as the leader of another nation. Had he criticised the gorvernment on the whole, ok. But I don't think you'll ever understand that subtle difference.

So now the Pope is nasty? What makes your views superior to his? You are without doubt one of the most obnoxious, and prejudiced people I have seen on forums so far. I stand for a free tolerant democratic state where everyone is allowed to hold the views they wish, you seem to wish for a state where freedom of speech shouldn't exist unless it fits your ultra-liberal views.

PLEASE do stop putting words in my mouth. Where did I say the pope was nasty? I just pointed out that there were a number of people from Germany who are defamed by people from other countries, so I got used to that and no longer scream "discrimination" if someone makes a stupid joke about my nationality.

Also your post is hypocritical, any major nation had people in the center stage who were/are less then ideal, so by what standard should all Germans hold your views and work to appropriate them?

Where did I say they should? I don't care what views they hold.

Well the Pope as repeatedly stated would not be ashamed that you come from a similar nation as him, he is above such triviliaties as seperate beliefs or prejudice. His first written work as a Pope was around the topic of love and living in peace with those next to you. Or is this way of thought something you disagree with?

Living in peace by telling people what they can and can't do? How does that make any sense?


Well no need to worry I suppose for you. The Next pope will probably be South American or African, then you have nothing to be ashamed about anymore. But seriously the small mindness and bigotedness of some people just upsets me in their judgemental ways, I am ashamed as a German myself that you come from my nation, please stay in Ireland.

So... I'm small-minded because I think people should be allowed to live their live as they choose as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others? And Benedict is tolerant because he thinks they shouldn't?

I don't misunderstand it. The original intent may vary from country to country (in Germany, for example, the seperation was created explicitly to keep riests out of politics, and to stop them from preaching politics to their congregations), but the result is the equivalent of a restraining order. Church has to keep away from politics, government has to keep away from church.



He called out to the "catholic politicians in Canada", therefore speaking as a religious leader, not as the leader of another nation. Had he criticised the gorvernment on the whole, ok. But I don't think you'll ever understand that subtle difference.

Darling Germany is not the epi-center of the universe, nor even the world's superpower. I could just as well claim, well in Albania, etc.. or well in Bhutan,....

And yes simply put priests cannot interfere in anyway in governments, as they are from religious orders, however for the last time the Pope, and only the pope is the only one in the whole Catholic lay order who has the power to do as he did, since he is the legitimate head of a sovereign country. Now if a Bishop or Cardinal had done what the Pope did, I would be with you in your condemnation since it goes against the seperation of church and state. But the Pope used a "loophole", since almost all countries laws of seperation of church and state are older then the creation of the Vatican as a true sovereign state, note sovereign, so there were no laws which say the a theocratic monarchy based on religion that is a also a sovereign nation also cannot criticize or interfere in government. You can call it cheap or dirty if you wish, but the Pope has the power simply through this gaping loophole. Hence there was nothing wrong with what he did until Canada changes its seperation of church and state to adapt it to the Vaticans status.

By the laws of the RCC, all catholics are to some degree led by the pope, so he was well within his rights to question their actions, and ask them to reconsider them. Now he would be extreme if he would, go about excommunicating them if they did not comply to his heeds, but he merely told them that as catholics they should think deeply if that is really what they want. He can hardly force them, nor will he since it goes against his idealogy of peace, but ask them to question their beliefs and what they hold to be true and possibly reconsider, hardly sounds sinister to me.

Darling Germany is not the epi-center of the universe, nor even the world's superpower. I could just as well claim, well in Albania, etc.. or well in Bhutan,....

Sweetheart, I was giving it as an example. for the simple reason that I know more about German legislative history than I do about Bhutan's.

And yes simply put priests cannot interfere in anyway in governments, as they are from religious orders, however for the last time the Pope, and only the pope is the only one in the whole Catholic lay order who has the power to do as he did, since he is the legitimate head of a sovereign country. Now if a Bishop or Cardinal had done what the Pope did, I would be with you in your condemnation since it goes against the seperation of church and state. But the Pope used a "loophole", since almost all countries laws of seperation of church and state are older then the creation of the Vatican as a true sovereign state, note sovereign, so there were no laws which say the a theocratic monarchy based on religion that is a also a sovereign nation also cannot criticize or interfere in government. You can call it cheap or dirty if you wish, but the Pope has the power simply through this gaping loophole. Hence there was nothing wrong with what he did until Canada changes its seperation of church and state to adapt it to the Vaticans status.

By the laws of the RCC, all catholics are to some degree led by the pope, so he was well within his rights to question their actions, and ask them to reconsider them. Now he would be extreme if he would, go about excommunicating them if they did not comply to his heeds, but he merely told them that as catholics they should think deeply if that is really what they want. He can hardly force them, nor will he since it goes against his idealogy of peace, but ask them to question their beliefs and what they hold to be true and possibly reconsider, hardly sounds sinister to me.

Fair enough. "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi", I guess.
It does go clearly about my sentiments of legislation, but then loopholes generally do.

Eight pages because the pope did said something everyone expects him to?

EDIT: Nine including this post

PLEASE do stop putting words in my mouth. Where did I say the pope was nasty? I just pointed out that there were a number of people from Germany who are defamed by people from other countries, so I got used to that and no longer scream "discrimination" if someone makes a stupid joke about my nationality.



Where did I say they should? I don't care what views they hold.



Living in peace by telling people what they can and can't do? How does that make any sense?



So... I'm small-minded because I think people should be allowed to live their live as they choose as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others? And Benedict is tolerant because he thinks they shouldn't?



You insinuated that the pope was nasty with the way your sentence was contexted. Now if this was because of a missing comma leading to a missunderstanding on my side I apologise, but reading your posts hints that you are subtly accusing such, even if unintended as you say.
Everyone makes jokes about other people's nationalities, the germans are huns, the french cowards, the british too gay for words, the russians are all backward communists, americans are fat and lazy, learn to live with the jokes and not take everything so serious point blank.

Obviously you care a lot about what views they hold, since you are calling others names if they do not share your views. You see I support the left wing anarchist that screams for revolution as much as the christian right wing that calls for a theocracy to their right of free speech and judge neither of them. I only judge if they cause bodily or property harm on others. This is why I am sickened at the small mindness of people who claim they are liberal and tolerant but in truth they are not, they only support those who mimic what they stand for. Well I differ, I think the homosexual, the religious one, and the ardent atheist have all the same right and all deserve the same respect and not be called names or put in boxes for their beliefs, something you have yet to learn as maturity comes.


He tells them that inorder to be Catholic they should desist from doing such and such. He doesn't command them to, merely tries to prod them in the direction he believes is the right way. Equivalent to a father trying to give you advice. The word Pope even means father indirectly.

Yes you are small minded since you deem to hound homophobics and racists for their views, so you are intolerant and small minded as they are to some degree. I am supportive of both sides, I believe everyone has a right to free speech and say what they believe without being hounded or spat on. Now I draw a line at violence, if a racist attacks someone you can be sure as heck I will be among the first to condemn.

Christianity is not ambiguous. The Pope is not a liar or a hypocrite: Christianity is a negative influence.
The nonsense you spout is a negative influence too. Sure, a lot of the organised forms of Christianity could do with substantial reform. Does that make the whole religion, all its tenets and its faithful evil? No. Hardly. Christianity has had several positive influences on history as well as negative. If you want to preach tolerance, then don't start saying all religion should be abolished, Christianity is evil etc. This is counterproductive at best.

The Pope has the right to freedom of speech and may express whatever sentiments and ideas he bethinks it necessary to. He may be wrong, he may even be in contradiction with true Christian dogma, but this is no reason to silence him - unlike what many left-wing lunatics believe (I exclude the right in this case because they are usually pro-Christianity).

Sweetheart, I was giving it as an example. for the simple reason that I know more about German legislative history than I do about Bhutan's.



Fair enough. "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi", I guess.
It does go clearly about my sentiments of legislation, but then loopholes generally do.

True, to be honest I also know little about Bhutan excepts its name.

Yes, as I stated it is your free opinion to heavily dislike the legislation and even try democratically to call for it to be alterred. But all I was stating was that the Pope and the previous one as well make good use of this loophole. But you are right the Church is pretty slick and uses most tricks in the book when it comes to following its agenda or furthering it.

one again, the pope is being a douchebag. I am not surprised.

The Pope started out his life as a "Hitler Youth" and it seems he never quite let go of those early teachings.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11659030']The Pope started out his life as a "Hitler Youth" and it seems he never quite let go of those early teachings.
Ummm...ever heard of Godwin's law? Don't try comparing the Pope to a Nazi...he isn't one. Everyone at that time belong to the Hitler Youth. That he even remained Catholic under these influences is astounding. Homophobia and the idea of traditional roles for women are commonplace within Catholic Church hierarchy, and are by no means Nazi ideals... Just conservative Catholicism.

Ummm...ever heard of Godwin's law? Don't try comparing the Pope to a Nazi...he isn't one. Everyone at that time belong to the Hitler Youth. That he even remained Catholic under these influences is astounding. Homophobia and the idea of traditional roles for women are commonplace within Catholic Church hierarchy, and are by no means Nazi ideals... Just conservative Catholicism.

Everyone keeps forgetting that Godwin and all who invoke him against anyone who points out that a Nazi is a Nazi, are child-raping Satanists...

Hitler rounded up and exterminated homosexuals as well.
Homophobia is Nazi behaviour.
Which truly points out that people who refuse to accept that the world truly is full of Nazis (anyone conservative -- politics or otherwise) truly are less intelligent.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11659039']Everyone keeps forgetting that Godwin and all who invoke him against anyone who points out that a Nazi is a Nazi, are child-raping Satanists...

Hitler rounded up and exterminated homosexuals as well.
Homophobia is Nazi behaviour.
Which truly points out that people who refuse to accept that the world truly is full of Nazis (anyone conservative -- politics or otherwise) truly are less intelligent.
Moronic.

Homophobia predated Nazism. You could say it is essentially a conservative belief that Nazism adopted into its ideology. Before the death of Rohm in fact, Nazism was pretty much tolerant of the "ailment." Thus it is a conservative social belief assimilated by Nazism, not vice-versa. Furthermore, I don't recall the Pope ever asking for all homosexuals to be rounded up and exterminated...

Furthermore, I don't recall the Pope ever asking for all homosexuals to be rounded up and exterminated...

That would kill Catholicism dead.
:D
There are more LAPSED Catholics than PRACTICING Catholics as it is...
:D

I'd be more surprised if he did NOT try it eventually, though...

You insinuated that the pope was nasty with the way your sentence was contexted. Now if this was because of a missing comma leading to a missunderstanding on my side I apologise, but reading your posts hints that you are subtly accusing such, even if unintended as you say.
Everyone makes jokes about other people's nationalities, the germans are huns, the french cowards, the british too gay for words, the russians are all backward communists, americans are fat and lazy, learn to live with the jokes and not take everything so serious point blank.

Obviously you care a lot about what views they hold, since you are calling others names if they do not share your views. You see I support the left wing anarchist that screams for revolution as much as the christian right wing that calls for a theocracy to their right of free speech and judge neither of them. I only judge if they cause bodily or property harm on others. This is why I am sickened at the small mindness of people who claim they are liberal and tolerant but in truth they are not, they only support those who mimic what they stand for. Well I differ, I think the homosexual, the religious one, and the ardent atheist have all the same right and all deserve the same respect and not be called names or put in boxes for their beliefs, something you have yet to learn as maturity comes.


He tells them that inorder to be Catholic they should desist from doing such and such. He doesn't command them to, merely tries to prod them in the direction he believes is the right way. Equivalent to a father trying to give you advice. The word Pope even means father indirectly.

Yes you are small minded since you deem to hound homophobics and racists for their views, so you are intolerant and small minded as they are to some degree. I am supportive of both sides, I believe everyone has a right to free speech and say what they believe without being hounded or spat on. Now I draw a line at violence, if a racist attacks someone you can be sure as heck I will be among the first to condemn.


Are you trying to say I'm intolerant and small-minded because I oppose people who actively try to take rights away from others?
Tolerating the intolerant in one thing, supporting or opposing their point of view is quiet another.
Yes, I did call the pope a prick and I do call him intolerant. Not my normal choice of words for anyone, but for him I tend to go out of my way. We've got history, you could say. However, in the course of the discussion, you, sweetcheeks, have called me a bigot, intolerant, arrogent, small-minded, illiterate and implied excessive stupidity on my part. I think you might be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11659049']That would kill Catholicism dead.
:D
There are more LAPSED Catholics than PRACTICING Catholics as it is...
:D

I'd be more surprised if he did NOT try it eventually, though...

Wouuld he tell the to execute order 66, or order 69?

is it me or is Pope Benedict a huge dick?

It's you. They have a right to believe what they believe.

Begoner21;11656796']Not being religious, I don't really have much of a clue about these matters. But isn't the Bible supposed to be the word of God, not Jesus, and so God is the sort of guy who wants "intolerance and gender-based repression perpetuated in his name," although it could also be termed "fighting deviation from moral values."

jesus was god in human form.

the catholic should stay conservative as usuall. homophobic and such. if people dont agree with the religion, then change your religion not the religion. the catholic faith dies so be it. but i doubt it will go for awhile. its been the underdog for awhile. underdogs last for ages.

Are you trying to say I'm intolerant and small-minded because I oppose people who actively try to take rights away from others?
Tolerating the intolerant in one thing, supporting or opposing their point of view is quiet another.
Yes, I did call the pope a prick and I do call him intolerant. Not my normal choice of words for anyone, but for him I tend to go out of my way. We've got history, you could say. However, in the course of the discussion, you, sweetcheeks, have called me a bigot, intolerant, arrogent, small-minded, illiterate and implied excessive stupidity on my part. I think you might be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.


No I just mentioned the obvious. And yes, if they try democratically by trying to get change by being a numerical majority, then obviously yes since it is democratically chaged I would support it. So yes I tolerate it as long as it is done by democratic and peaceful means.

You have a history with Pope Benedict,.... And no I believe I haven't called you arrogant, nor have I called you illiterate I merely asked that you reread what you yourself wrote, hardly an accusation. And as for excessive stupidity where did I mention this, no where, of course if it invokes the feeling then probably it is self-accusatory on your part.

Nice way to try and turn the whole debate around by using a clichéd metaphor, the only things I called you were intolerant and small minded.

It's you. They have a right to believe what they believe.
Whether he has a right or not, doesn't stop him from being a dick.

Precisely it is just to show that Heikoku is racist nothing else.

Actually, not only I've been to München (great city, you should try Donisl), I find German culture to be magnificent, and I was not making any racist remarks, unless you decide that comparing the pope to a dog is racism. Well, it may be.

Against the dog.

erg...and some people thought this was the pope who would allow contraception.

That would have been rather shocking, actually. Most Catholics I know knew he was very conservative, and we (as in me and my Catholic friends, I can't speak for the Catholic world) were hoping for someone a bit more...with the times.

I'm not. I'm just tired of others reducing my country to 12 years of dark history and a Pope, a Bavarian none the less. He's the Pope now, though he definitely is not speaking for me or my country.

Why should I be ashamed of others' actions? I didn't do anything wrong.

Let me make a point here of saying that I criticized the pope, not your people. Germany has the best musical history in the world, I myself wrote something pointing out that the current Germans did nothing wrong and thus should not be ashamed or punished when I visited Dachau, and his accusation of racism stems from nothing but the fact that I disagree with him about the current pope. He's not a dog because he's German, he's a dog because he looks like one. :p

Thank God that Josef "the German Shepherd" Ratzlinger will die soon enough and that the Church will end up electing someone that's actually human to its top. That or it'll disappear out of failure to adapt. We will win, Mitanni. We're not "Christian-haters", or "backsliders", we are the future. Your opinions belong in the same place the Inquisition does: In the past.

We will win and there's nothing you or your twisted idea of a God can do about it.

Nothing.

And that makes you furious enough to come here to spout garbage online, because that's all you can do, from your position of utter and complete powerlessness.

Pitiful.

With responses as thoughtful as yours, I'm glad "modern tolerance" is showing us where the world is headed. Thank goodness! I was tired of people trying to be respectful to each other, it's so out-dated.

Hey! Be a little more imaginative when beating down on the Pope.

While he might be German (or used to be German, or whatever he's now) he certainly does not represent, nor speak for, me and many others.

I'm a Protestant and he has no say over me, while He does have an influence on me, but I don't see how ridiculing him because he's German makes your point any better.

I apologize for any misunderstanding here. I only used "German Shepherd" because it could be applied in a joke about Herr Ratzlinger. My father speaks German and taught me some, I've been to München and find German culture to be great, its main figures in the music, but the fine arts as well. München is a great city, with a great subway system that we lack here in Brazil. And our "races", as much as Cybach wants to cry racism (which he did NOT cry out against Deep Kimchi when he said all Arabs should be exterminated, to show you how convenient it is for him), are not that different, since I descend from slovaks.

By the way, if you ever happen to be in München, go to Donisl. Great place.

With responses as thoughtful as yours, I'm glad "modern tolerance" is showing us where the world is headed. Thank goodness! I was tired of people trying to be respectful to each other, it's so out-dated.

Because Ratzlinger was showing way too much respect towards the people of Canada when he said the Canadian government, a democratic one, should not heed the will of its people? Because trying to discriminate people on the basis of sexual option is respectful now? Respect is a two-way street, and I will NOT respect someone that's disrespectful only because he's the pope.

*Snip*

2- Your pope shows a lot of interest in this issue. Maybe he's hiding something. Well, actually he's hiding far worse things, considering all the cover-ups the Church keeps doing in paedophilia cases. You know, as opposed to consenting adults, the priests you follow seem to enjoy more contact with the younger folks...

*snip*

I always thought several parties were at fault here.

First and foremost: The Church for covering it up. That was just plain wrong.

Secondly: Parents who accepted hush money.

Because Ratzlinger was showing way too much respect towards the people of Canada when he said the Canadian government, a democratic one, should not heed the will of its people? Because trying to discriminate people on the basis of sexual option is respectful now? Respect is a two-way street, and I will NOT respect someone that's disrespectful only because he's the pope.

I'm pretty sure he was yelling at Catholic politicians.

yeah look at Canada now. The place is a hell hole, God sure showed them:rolleyes:

yeah look at Canada now. The place is a hell hole, God sure showed them:rolleyes:

lol

I'm pretty sure he was yelling at Catholic politicians.

By calling on them to ignore the will of the people that democratically elected them, he was disrespecting said people. Pure and simple. I respect Jacques Chirac even if he doesn't agree with me on economy. I respect Angela Merkel even if she had to make some concessions to govern. I don't respect a person that called on a democratically elected congress to disrespect a democratical will, on the basis of religion, which has no logic to back it up.

By calling on them to ignore the will of the people that democratically elected them, he was disrespecting said people. Pure and simple. I respect Jacques Chirac even if he doesn't agree with me on economy. I respect Angela Merkel even if she had to make some concessions to govern. I don't respect a person that called on a democratically elected congress to disrespect a democratical will, on the basis of religion, which has no logic to back it up.

By calling on the politicians, he's calling on the Catholics who presumably elected them, which is still within his rights as the leader of the Catholic church.

By calling on the politicians, he's calling on the Catholics who presumably elected them, which is still within his rights as the leader of the Catholic church.

You'd have a point if we could prove with absolute certainty that no one but catholics voted for these catholic congressmen. Not only it's highly unlikely, it's impossible to prove.

You'd have a point if we could prove with absolute certainty that no one but catholics voted for these catholic congressmen. Not only it's highly unlikely, it's impossible to prove.

Oh I agree with you, I'm just saying.

In all honesty, the Pope probably shouldn't be sticking his nose in the business of politicians.

Maybe he should be yelling at the priests?

I dunno...kinda hard to argue for him when I don't agree, lol.

Its really not that suprising. Ratzinger was nicknamed the "Enforcer" of Catholic dogma, with good reason. I would go as far as calling him a "Witchhunter" and an "Inquisitor."

Oh I agree with you, I'm just saying.

In all honesty, the Pope probably shouldn't be sticking his nose in the business of politicians.

Maybe he should be yelling at the priests?

I dunno...kinda hard to argue for him when I don't agree, lol.

That's my point, he was being disrespectful. If he had simply called on the catholic voters to vote the congressmen out of office next time, he'd still be a dick, but a respectful one.

Its really not that suprising. Ratzinger was nicknamed the "Enforcer" of Catholic dogma, with good reason. I would go as far as calling him a "Witchhunter" and an "Inquisitor."

I'd go farther than that, if I had words for the kind of wrong I see in that man.

That's my point, he was being disrespectful. If he had simply called on the catholic voters to vote the congressmen out of office next time, he'd still be a dick, but a respectful one.

I see your point better now that we talked it out.

Good point!

I apologize for any misunderstanding here. I only used "German Shepherd" because it could be applied in a joke about Herr Ratzlinger. My father speaks German and taught me some, I've been to München and find German culture to be great, its main figures in the music, but the fine arts as well. München is a great city, with a great subway system that we lack here in Brazil. And our "races", as much as Cybach wants to cry racism (which he did NOT cry out against Deep Kimchi when he said all Arabs should be exterminated, to show you how convenient it is for him), are not that different, since I descend from slovaks.

By the way, if you ever happen to be in München, go to Donisl. Great place.


I wasn't posting at the time Deep Kimchi posted that, or I overlooked it either way hardly relevenat to this thread.

As German Nightmare said, the whole German Shepherd mantra brings on a false perspective. Germany only traditionally has a 30% Catholic population, the stronghold being in the south of Germany (has to do with the 30 years war, the states to the south were closer to france and spain in the fighting so they retained their faith, unlike the distant states which were closer to Sweden and far east). Also Bavaria is the famous stronghold of Catholicism and conservatives in Germany, even to this day the state always voted the CDU (christian democrats and not the socialist). So to call him a stereotype of the famous german dog, is misleading and in essence ignorant.

As for you being related to Germans by blood, through being descended from Slovaks, please read up. Slovaks are slavic which is a whole different denomination of race, Germans are not slavic. In fact a person from India is probably closer related to Germans then you are. Or in Brazil those who have Spanish ancestors are related. Remember in WW2 the Germans killed Slavs because they deemed them inferior, not Aryan. There is a lot of difference as any geneticist will tell you.

But back on topic. You can disagree with his actions, as you do with other politicians, but to claim he did anything wrong or "not allowed" is false, he was well within his rights to make the statements he did. Now whether you agree or disagree with him is your personal matter.

But I would hardly call the spiritual leader of one billion roman catholics, and the representative of Christ on earth a dick because he decreed something you disagree with. Please grow up and come back when you can express your disagreement in non-juvenile terms.

Which part of it doesn't apply to the pope's stance on gay marriage?
Even using that definition makes you, the rest of the neo-left and well, everyone of the like, intolerant. (not that I needed a definition to tell me that.)

in?tol?er?ant

–adjective
1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.
2. unable or unwilling to tolerate or endure (usually fol. by of): intolerant of very hot weather.
–noun
3. an intolerant person; bigot.


And by the way, one needn't be tolerant of intolerance to support tolerance. Extremism in anything is detrimental to the belief system. A belief in tolerance is no different.
The irony!


*MUST RESIST URGE TO MOCK!*

I wasn't posting at the time Deep Kimchi posted that, or I overlooked it either way hardly relevenat to this thread.

As German Nightmare said, the whole German Shepherd mantra brings on a false perspective. Germany only traditionally has a 30% Catholic population, the stronghold being in the south of Germany (has to do with the 30 years war, the states to the south were closer to france and spain in the fighting so they retained their faith, unlike the distant states which were closer to Sweden and far east). Also Bavaria is the famous stronghold of Catholicism and conservatives in Germany, even to this day the state always voted the CDU (christian democrats and not the socialist). So to call him a stereotype of the famous german dog, is misleading and in essence ignorant.

As for you being related to Germans by blood, through being descended from Slovaks, please read up. Slovaks are slavic which is a whole different denomination of race, Germans are not slavic. In fact a person from India is probably closer related to Germans then you are. Or in Brazil those who have Spanish ancestors are related. Remember in WW2 the Germans killed Slavs because they deemed them inferior, not Aryan. There is a lot of difference as any geneticist will tell you.

But back on topic. You can disagree with his actions, as you do with other politicians, but to claim he did anything wrong or "not allowed" is false, he was well within his rights to make the statements he did. Now whether you agree or disagree with him is your personal matter.

But I would hardly call the spiritual leader of one billion roman catholics, and the representative of Christ on earth a dick because he decreed something you disagree with. Please grow up and come back when you can express your disagreement in non-juvenile terms.

My friend, you called me a bigot for disagreeing with you, so it's not your place to call me on calling him a dick. Even the catholics despise him, so he's as much a leader as Saddam Hussein was. And he "decreed" nothing, because he doesn't have that power. Further, as I pointed out, he WAS being disrespectful towards the Canadians that ELECTED these congressmen. Respect is earned, and he, just like the president, just like a doctor or just like a hobo, gets mine, if any, based on what he does, not on what his position of power du jour is. He's not the representative of Christ on Earth, he's the representative of a few conservative cardilans that voted him in. Jesus was tolerant, he isn't. Jesus was against state enforcing religion (well, you'd think at least since Rome did crucify him for his religion), he isn't.

Edit: Again, I was calling the pope a dog. If he hailed from Brazil, my land, I'd call him a Brazilian Mastiff. If he came from China, I'd call him a Shi Tzu. It's not about nationality here, no matter how much you want to make it so.

My original point - that the Pope, as Successor of Peter & the stand-in for Christ 'til His return - that all this petty finger-pointing and recrimination of his helps not one iota in his mission to help prepare the world for the return of the Messiah. Jesus wasn't about intolerance, nor was he about denying women their freedom to choose. So just how does being a superlative dick help in all this?

This Pope, aside from being a figurehead, is a willful tool for the promulgation of some of the worst aspects of organized worship. And if this episode should serve to underscore anything at all in the hearts and minds of free people everywhere, it is that collectivley, humanity is outgrowing the need for further hierarchical structures, particularly structures that interpose between God and humanity.

Kick it over and let's move on - and all for the better, folks.

My friend, you called me a bigot for disagreeing with you, so it's not your place to call me on calling him a dick. Even the catholics despise him, so he's as much a leader as Saddam Hussein was. And he "decreed" nothing, because he doesn't have that power. Further, as I pointed out, he WAS being disrespectful towards the Canadians that ELECTED these congressmen. Respect is earned, and he, just like the president, just like a doctor or just like a hobo, gets mine, if any, based on what he does, not on what his position of power du jour is. He's not the representative of Christ on Earth, he's the representative of a few conservative cardilans that voted him in. Jesus was tolerant, he isn't. Jesus was against state enforcing religion (well, you'd think at least since Rome did crucify him for his religion), he isn't.

Edit: Again, I was calling the pope a dog. If he hailed from Brazil, my land, I'd call him a Brazilian Mastiff. If he came from China, I'd call him a Shi Tzu. It's not about nationality here, no matter how much you want to make it so.

Well the Pope's passport says he is a citizen of the state of Vatican, so think up a dog fitting to him. With his ascension to becoming the pope he is no longer German per se, he was just born there, but in truth he Vaticani if one wishes to get all technical about it.


Show me where the majority of the worlds Catholics despise him? A poll, a census, any credible source? If not please stop spouting garbage that you cannot support.

His title puts him as the representative of Christ on earth, if you choose to believe this or not is your issue, but that is his stated position and title.

Also where do we see Jesus Christ critizing the theocratic government of Israel? No I think he even praises it if I am not mistaken. Show me the passage from Christ's mouth that refutes this and I will relent.


Righhttt, he was a leader such as Saddam Hussein. Now where is the pope gassing people, systematically torturing, or killing them if they don't praise him? Or for that matter did the first paper Saddam issue when he ascended to power be based completely on the concept of love, family and cherishing those around you?

Yes you are right I call you bigotted, as you proven just beyond doubt, to compare the pope with Saddam Hussein is about as contrasting a proof as you can offer.

Oh boy.

Nice opinions.
So you deny your obvious hatred and disdain for it?


If you had bothered to read my original post, you would KNOW that I had commented on your "islamic friends," where I described your "counterpats from Mecca." It would be easier for me if you were at all capable of processing opinions contrary to your own.
Yes I saw that, but forgot to take it out in my reply... sorry


If you had ever read the Bible, you would know that it is Christianity that says all of these things. Please try to put more thought into your lifestyle choices; if you read the Bible, really read it all the way through, you will lose your faith. I sure did.
More thought.... lol That's funny coming from the (neo-?) left.

Have before and would still like to know where you people get that insensate (asinine) idea from.

You should take your own advice.


On a personal note. I'm not sure where you're getting that I'm religious from. But please don't make assumptions because I am most certainly not religious in any way. :|

Well the Pope's passport says he is a citizen of the state of Vatican, so think up a dog fitting to him. With his ascension to becoming the pope he is no longer German per se, he was just born there, but in truth he Vaticani if one wishes to get all technical about it.


Show me where the majority of the worlds Catholics despise him? A poll, a census, any credible source? If not please stop spouting garbage that you cannot support.

His title puts him as the representative of Christ on earth, if you choose to believe this or not is your issue, but that is his stated position and title.

Also where do we see Jesus Christ critizing the theocratic government of Israel? No I think he even praises it if I am not mistaken. Show me the passage from Christ's mouth that refutes this and I will relent.


Righhttt, he was a leader such as Saddam Hussein. Now where is the pope gassing people, systematically torturing, or killing them if they don't praise him? Or for that matter did the first paper Saddam issue when he ascended to power be based completely on the concept of love, family and cherishing those around you?

Yes you are right I call you bigotted, as you proven just beyond doubt, to compare the pope with Saddam Hussein is about as contrasting a proof as you can offer.

Right. You call me bigoted because I call the pope on his prejudice against homosexuals. Who is bigoted again? I was not making the point of gassing its own (800 people) population, I was making the point of not having been elected by vote. And I've seen many catholics that despise him. And, with Christ having been a victim of state-sponsored religious prosecution, it's safe to say he didn't support it, unless you're claiming that Jesus is a masochist, which I'm pretty sure he isn't. The current pope ascended to power based on bigotry, intolerance and reactionary thought. If he gave a damn about love, he'd allow the church to perform gay marriages. His "stated position" means squat. A casual stroll through a mental institution will yield a lot of country leaders, by your argument, for that is their stated position. And, as soon as someone in Vatican creates a new dog breed, I'll be glad to announce the new nickname for Ratzlinger.

Right. You call me bigoted because I call the pope on his prejudice against homosexuals. Who is bigoted again? I was not making the point of gassing its own (800 people) population, I was making the point of not having been elected by vote. And I've seen many catholics that despise him. And, with Christ having been a victim of state-sponsored religious prosecution, it's safe to say he didn't support it, unless you're claiming that Jesus is a masochist, which I'm pretty sure he isn't. The current pope ascended to power based on bigotry, intolerance and reactionary thought. If he gave a damn about love, he'd allow the church to perform gay marriages. His "stated position" means squat. A casual stroll through a mental institution will yield a lot of country leaders, by your argument, for that is their stated position. And, as soon as someone in Vatican creates a new dog breed, I'll be glad to announce the new nickname for Ratzlinger.

Didn't you just say before he was voted by the Cardinals, but now you claim he is not voted in? Please explain yourself in an understandable form.

Christ the victim of state-sponsered religious persecution, I see you haven't a clue. Christ was killed because Rome saw in him a threat that would lead the entire region to instability. Also the Jewish Rabbis in none to clear words threatened that if Christ was not killed, they would rebel against Roman rule and take matters into their own hands. Remember Pontius Pilates hesitance? He was afraid killing Christ would lead to his followers rebelling, and he feared not satisfying the Sanhedrin. Hardly religious persecution is it? It was more a matter of weeding out malefactors and trying to bring calm in a region that had already had two bloody revolts.

The rest of your post, if he gave a damn about love he would allow homosexual marriages? Tell me how that is not point of view and bears any relevance to this discussion. As I said you are bigoted to the position of the Church and its doctrine, which is not a problem in itself but you seem to be under the illusion that you are an all encompassing tolerant person which frankly is fraud. You may be more tolerant then many, but even you have groups to which you are prejudiced in attitude and rhetoric.

Also to the main point. Saddam Hussein came to power through a military putsch and killing all those who then tried to deny his claim, tell me how this is in any way comparable to the Pope's ascension to power? You are just strewing around strawmen, if you have nothing constructive to say about the matter but only further your bigotted claims and accusations may I at least demand you do so in a mature, accurate and relevant way, or please leave the thread if you are incapable.

I'm cursorily following Heikoku & Cybach's interactions, and I feel I must interject; I was spiritually raised to tolerate a great many things, but eventually I felt I had to take leave of my spiritual community, as I could not in all good conscious tolerate intolerance - and I feel that the official promulgation of intolerance as a moral sanction is the height of ugliness.

It is not bigotry to rail against inequity and intolerance; it is the natural reaction of the free, when confronted by those who would seek to replace old yokes of oppression and ignorance.

No sale, Pope Ratty. And do give my regards to Satan, won't you?

Begoner21;11656738']He is simply following what is says in the Bible, as twisted as what it says may be. Do you expect him to publicly burn the Bible and say that you can have sex whenever you want, with whomever you want, and that you can kill the resulting baby?

Hmmm.... abortion existed in Jesus's time. How much time did he spend discussing it? None? But it must have been the most important issue, just like it is now, no? I guess Jesus just must not have realized how it was so evil as to the be the most important issue of the day. I guess he forgot.

may I at least demand you do so in a mature, accurate and relevant way, or please leave the thread if you are incapable.

Isn't it a tad bit presumptious to make demands of posters in someone else's thread, Cybach? In any event, I'm enjoying your and Heikoku's repartee - and I'm not making demands of anybody posting here. Even those I don't particularly agree with.

So lighten up, already.

No I just mentioned the obvious. And yes, if they try democratically by trying to get change by being a numerical majority, then obviously yes since it is democratically chaged I would support it. So yes I tolerate it as long as it is done by democratic and peaceful means.

Anti-discrimination laws are never decided by majority. They are put into place to protect the rights of a minority from oppression by the majority, therefore it would be pointless beyond belief to ask the majorrity if they are ok with those laws. :rolleyes:
Women's rights to vote were not put in place by general consent, but against the will of most of the voting population. Same goes for black emancipation.

You have a history with Pope Benedict,.... And no I believe I haven't called you arrogant, nor have I called you illiterate I merely asked that you reread what you yourself wrote, hardly an accusation. And as for excessive stupidity where did I mention this, no where, of course if it invokes the feeling then probably it is self-accusatory on your part.

Nice way to try and turn the whole debate around by using a clichéd metaphor, the only things I called you were intolerant and small minded.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11657204&postcount=49
Calling me prejudiced and intolerant

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11657744&postcount=56
Calling me illiterate

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11658935&postcount=114
Calling me childish

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11658948&postcount=116
Calling me obnoxious, hypocritical, small minded and bigot.

Add to that the fact that you constantly keep putting word into my mouth that I never wrote nor implied.

Unless you stop the personal attacks, I'm done with this debate, as I won't stoop to this level.
Thanks.

I'm cursorily following Heikoku & Cybach's interactions, and I feel I must interject; I was spiritually raised to tolerate a great many things, but eventually I felt I had to take leave of my spiritual community, as I could not in all good conscious tolerate intolerance - and I feel that the official promulgation of intolerance as a moral sanction is the height of ugliness.

It is not bigotry to rail against inequity and intolerance; it is the natural reaction of the free, when confronted by those who would seek to replace old yokes of oppression and ignorance.

No sale, Pope Ratty. And do give my regards to Satan, won't you?

Danke.

Hmmm.... abortion existed in Jesus's time. How much time did he spend discussing it? None? But it must have been the most important issue, just like it is now, no? I guess Jesus just must not have realized how it was so evil as to the be the most important issue of the day. I guess he forgot.

Rome had clear legislation regarding abortions, so yes, it did exist. And so did contraception. Just thought I'd mention it.

I'm cursorily following Heikoku & Cybach's interactions, and I feel I must interject; I was spiritually raised to tolerate a great many things, but eventually I felt I had to take leave of my spiritual community, as I could not in all good conscious tolerate intolerance - and I feel that the official promulgation of intolerance as a moral sanction is the height of ugliness.

It is not bigotry to rail against inequity and intolerance; it is the natural reaction of the free, when confronted by those who would seek to replace old yokes of oppression and ignorance.

No sale, Pope Ratty. And do give my regards to Satan, won't you?

I'd like to add to this. The Bible refers to someone sitting in the position the Pope sits in once. It calls the man who sits there the 'man of sin'.

From another thread -
Well, then there's just a couple of other facts. One there was no Papacy in the time of Peter, despite the claims of the Catholic Church. There was no recognized Papacy for centuries after Peter. Unless, of course you listen to the made-up Papal line of the Catholic Church. There's the fact that the Divine infallibility of the Pope wasn't declared an article of faith until 1870.

How about the titles - The vicar of Christ? We are sheep and have one Shepard according to Christ. Was he wrong? Is Christ not that Shepard? Vicar of Christ literally means substitute for Christ, one authorized to perform the functions of Christ in His office. Really? That's a bold claim. There is only one reference to a man sitting in place of God on earth. 2 Thess 2:3-4. That man is called the "man of sin".

The Bishop of Rome? Hmmmm... could this be that until they suddenly declared the Roman Bishop to be the head of the Church the leadership of the Church was shared by several Bishops until the Bishop of Rome declared himself Archbishop (another title he holds today)? Could this be why the title remains?

Supreme Pontiff? Seriously? Supreme Pontiff? No one notices that?

Holy Father? How many times was this used in the Bible? Once. By Christ. And to whom was Christ referring? GOD!!! We use the same title for the Pope that Jesus Christ himself used for God!!!

How can anyone not notice this is a problem? The Catholic Church in the Catechism talks about one shepard, one fold, referring to the Papacy and the Church, but Jesus said He was a good shepard the one shepard of the one fold.

John 10:14"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

Was Jesus wrong when he said he was the one shepard? Did he really mean TWO?

Then there is Luke 22 when the apostles are discussing who is greatest among them and Jesus tells them that the very concept is a Gentile concept and that they are not to declare themselves benefactors and kings. He says the one who rules is to be just as the one who serves. The Church destroyed that concept.

His Most Holy Asshat

You are just strewing around strawmen, if you have nothing constructive to say about the matter but only further your bigotted claims and accusations may I at least demand you do so in a mature, accurate and relevant way, or please leave the thread if you are incapable.

Hmmmm... let's see so far I've seen you call just about everyone who disagrees with you various names. Yes, I suppose you are in a position to demand people be more mature and relevant. Well, not people, you. Demand it of yourself. Here's a mirror.

Didn't you just say before he was voted by the Cardinals, but now you claim he is not voted in? Please explain yourself in an understandable form.

Christ the victim of state-sponsered religious persecution, I see you haven't a clue. Christ was killed because Rome saw in him a threat that would lead the entire region to instability. Also the Jewish Rabbis in none to clear words threatened that if Christ was not killed, they would rebel against Roman rule and take matters into their own hands. Remember Pontius Pilates hesitance? He was afraid killing Christ would lead to his followers rebelling, and he feared not satisfying the Sanhedrin. Hardly religious persecution is it? It was more a matter of weeding out malefactors and trying to bring calm in a region that had already had two bloody revolts.

The rest of your post, if he gave a damn about love he would allow homosexual marriages? Tell me how that is not point of view and bears any relevance to this discussion. As I said you are bigoted to the position of the Church and its doctrine, which is not a problem in itself but you seem to be under the illusion that you are an all encompassing tolerant person which frankly is fraud. You may be more tolerant then many, but even you have groups to which you are prejudiced in attitude and rhetoric.

Also to the main point. Saddam Hussein came to power through a military putsch and killing all those who then tried to deny his claim, tell me how this is in any way comparable to the Pope's ascension to power? You are just strewing around strawmen, if you have nothing constructive to say about the matter but only further your bigotted claims and accusations may I at least demand you do so in a mature, accurate and relevant way, or please leave the thread if you are incapable.

So by saying he's being a bigot by trying to set his paws on the Canadian parliament without being elected for it I'm automatically tarnishing all of the Catholic Church? Further, having arrived to a logical conclusion that something is wrong is bigotry now? Somebody's getting a dictionary for birthday.

Christ preached tolerance. That fundamental I know, and you seem not to.

Ratzlinger was not elected by the Catholic population, not even by all priests, he was elected by a small junta. That's undemocratical. I could compare him to some "softer" dictator if it offends you so.

And considering your definition of mature, accurate and relevant is sucking up to the pope and calling anyone that doesn't do so a bigot, I will not abide by your request. About me leaving: Make. Me.

Eww the legislating from the bench argument. Yawn.
So the left still tries to deny the existence of their favorite strategy to get what they want done when the "poor ignorant, unenlightened masses" don't agree with the "sage like wisdom" of their views and opinions. :P


Just like the attitudes that were held before womens sufferage and civil rights.
Except they aren't being deprived of anything. This is purely an ideological and thus political issue. Not a human or civil rights one.


So. Many hetros get married and have no desire to have children.
Which is irrelevant because they can if they so choose.


And how many children are raised with a single parent?
Again irrelevant.. Regrettably it happens, there's no much we can do to help it, but that doesn't mean we should try to perpetuate or extend the problem.

Look at it this way. A lot of people are killed each year by falling asleep while smoking. But does that mean we should burn other smokers to death? No.


How many kids sit in the systems waiting for adoption?
Emotional fallacy, irrelevant.

Pope Benedict lashed out Friday at Canada for allowing same-sex marriage
and abortion, saying the policies resulted from Catholic politicians ignoring the
values of their religion.
Yes, Ratzinger, that's the point of separation of church and state. Thanks to the Canadian politicians who respect that!

Such laws, Benedict said, are the result of "the exclusion of God from the
public sphere."
Ratzinger and I apparently agree on something.

I am not surprised at the Pope's behaviour...

After all, Ratzinger has shown his displeasure of those who believe in a theology that respects women and social justice:
January 24,1997, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, CDF, has taken up a, new position that Fr. Balasuriya has been ex-communicated not so much for his support 'for' a female priesthood, but rather for his doc trine' of originals' in where Fr. Balasuriya States: that "according to which original sin has been' invented by the clergy in order to be 'able to exercise' power over the 'souls' of the 'faithful." "'Further, Cardinal Ratzinger accuses 'Fr. Balasuriya"s theses stating that they are' influenced by the Marxist interpretation of religion which claims that religion' and priests create positions for themselves to exercise power 'over the souls of the 'faithful. Even the notification of ex-communication did not accuse Fr'. Balasuriya of taking a position of a Marxist interpretation of religion. Furthermore, Leodardo Boff, who was accused of trying to bring' in a Marxist interpretation' of religion was' not ex-communicated.
from: http://www.ahrchk.net/hrsolid/mainfile.php/Solidarity+News+Flash+1997+JAN/2098

Except they aren't being deprived of anything. This is purely an ideological and thus political issue. Not a human or civil rights one.

They aren't being denied anything? *watches logic run away screaming* Quick, how do we legislate ideological issues? Is that a joke? Are you actually suggesting there are no rights, priveleges, advantages associated to this issue? If it were purely ideological, why would you care? What difference would legislation make? Why would it be political? It's not purely ideological which is the reason for the argument.

They aren't being denied anything? *watches logic run away screaming* Quick, how do we legislate ideological issues? Is that a joke? Are you actually suggesting there are no rights, priveleges, advantages associated to this issue? If it were purely ideological, why would you care? What difference would legislation make? Why would it be political? It's not purely ideological which is the reason for the argument.

Shhh... Let's NOT remind him that marriage includes a series of RIGHTS between the couple, including but not limited to hospital visitation, inheritance...

Hmmmm... let's see so far I've seen you call just about everyone who disagrees with you various names. Yes, I suppose you are in a position to demand people be more mature and relevant. Well, not people, you. Demand it of yourself. Here's a mirror.

Not quite if you read further into my posts you will get the feeling it is meant ironically, I am just subjecting them to the same they subject to others, otherwise I fear it would be hypocritical. I just showed one can easily be as small minded as many tolerant people are and spout intolerant and bigot in an endless succession. Note read my posts, I tried to manage to include the word bigot or intolerant in almost every second sentence. My apologies if it was too subtle for you.

Not quite if you read further into my posts you will get the feeling it is meant ironically, I am just subjecting them to the same they subject to others, otherwise I fear it would be hypocritical. I just showed one can easily be as small minded as many tolerant people are and spout intolerant and bigot in an endless succession. Note read my posts, I tried to manage to include the word bigot or intolerant in almost every second sentence. My apologies if it was too subtle for you.

That sounds an awful lot like a retcon for me.

Well, regardless. Calling the pope intolerant is not intolerance any more than calling a spade a shovel is.

Not quite if you read further into my posts you will get the feeling it is meant ironically, I am just subjecting them to the same they subject to others, otherwise I fear it would be hypocritical. I just showed one can easily be as small minded as many tolerant people are and spout intolerant and bigot in an endless succession. Note read my posts, I tried to manage to include the word bigot or intolerant in almost every second sentence. My apologies if it was too subtle for you.

Ha. So you're baiting them. Shhh... since baiting is against the rules, you'd do well to not tell people you're breaking the rules on purpose.

Meanwhile, you're 'ironical' attacks continue even in this post. From reading your posts I see that you can pretend all you like, but you, like us, realize you don't have a strong argument so you add a laundry list of insults in hopes it will bolster your argument. It doesn't. Make an argument. One that won't result in snickers. I'm willing to wait. Take your time.

I'd like to add to this. The Bible refers to someone sitting in the position the Pope sits in once. It calls the man who sits there the 'man of sin'.

From another thread -
Well, then there's just a couple of other facts. One there was no Papacy in the time of Peter, despite the claims of the Catholic Church. There was no recognized Papacy for centuries after Peter. Unless, of course you listen to the made-up Papal line of the Catholic Church. There's the fact that the Divine infallibility of the Pope wasn't declared an article of faith until 1870.

How about the titles - The vicar of Christ? We are sheep and have one Shepard according to Christ. Was he wrong? Is Christ not that Shepard? Vicar of Christ literally means substitute for Christ, one authorized to perform the functions of Christ in His office. Really? That's a bold claim. There is only one reference to a man sitting in place of God on earth. 2 Thess 2:3-4. That man is called the "man of sin".

The Bishop of Rome? Hmmmm... could this be that until they suddenly declared the Roman Bishop to be the head of the Church the leadership of the Church was shared by several Bishops until the Bishop of Rome declared himself Archbishop (another title he holds today)? Could this be why the title remains?

Supreme Pontiff? Seriously? Supreme Pontiff? No one notices that?

Holy Father? How many times was this used in the Bible? Once. By Christ. And to whom was Christ referring? GOD!!! We use the same title for the Pope that Jesus Christ himself used for God!!!

How can anyone not notice this is a problem? The Catholic Church in the Catechism talks about one shepard, one fold, referring to the Papacy and the Church, but Jesus said He was a good shepard the one shepard of the one fold.

John 10:14"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

Was Jesus wrong when he said he was the one shepard? Did he really mean TWO?

Then there is Luke 22 when the apostles are discussing who is greatest among them and Jesus tells them that the very concept is a Gentile concept and that they are not to declare themselves benefactors and kings. He says the one who rules is to be just as the one who serves. The Church destroyed that concept.

A matter of sheer opinion. If you would believe in the Papacy obviously you wouldn't be protestant so hardly relevant now is it. I see none of the theological constraints you see, also your "made-up" line of previous popes is not a proven fact but also a point of view and theory, as is your entitled right to believe in.

Also how does the pope not serve? Does the pope have any personal possession, does a priest have any personal possession. No they do not, they have everything on loan from their congregation, hence they serve those who follow them.

Peter was the first pope by the word of Christ himself, so with obvious logic since Peter was the first bishop of Rome, the next pope would also be the bishop of Rome, so yes there is a papal line with Christ at its head.

Ha. So you're baiting them. Shhh... since baiting is against the rules, you'd do well to not tell people you're breaking the rules on purpose.

Meanwhile, you're 'ironical' attacks continue even in this post. From reading your posts I see that you can pretend all you like, but you, like us, realize you don't have a strong argument so you add a laundry list of insults in hopes it will bolster your argument. It doesn't. Make an argument. One that won't result in snickers. I'm willing to wait. Take your time.

Baiting is against the rules? Shame takes the fun out of a lot of things.

Uhmm, I made my arguement. Care to tell me how what the Pope said was an illegal action or not allowed as was claimed at the beginning? The Pope is the head of a sovereign state, so was well within his rights even if he was abusing a loophole. So what about this fact causes snickers?

Baiting is against the rules? Shame takes the fun out of a lot of things.

Uhmm, I made my arguement. Care to tell me how what the Pope said was an illegal action or not allowed as was claimed at the beginning? The Pope is the head of a sovereign state, so was well within his rights even if he was abusing a loophole. So what about this fact causes snickers?

I don't know where you saw illegality claimed here. I claimed he's a dick, many people claimed he's a bigot, but criminal will have to wait till his affair with an altar boy comes to light. :p

Baiting is against the rules? Shame takes the fun out of a lot of things.

Uhmm, I made my arguement. Care to tell me how what the Pope said was an illegal action or not allowed as was claimed at the beginning? The Pope is the head of a sovereign state, so was well within his rights even if he was abusing a loophole. So what about this fact causes snickers?

The fact it's a strawman. Could you please link the post that state the Pope violated the law or that his behavior is not permitted? I'll wait.

The fact it's a strawman. Could you please link the post that state the Pope violated the law or that his behavior is not permitted? I'll wait.


His opinion, fair enough.
But should he be allowed to try and tell an elected government what to do? With what right?

From Cabra West, page 2, you will note only at that point did I even post,....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499025&page=2

From Cabra West, page 2, you will note only at that point did I even post,....

Meaning allowed unchallenged by us. Not saying he's not entitled to his opinion, which she explicitly stated in the post. Are we not supposed to snicker when you can't read a post written that clearly? She called it bad form. Not illegal. Can you show me where she or anyone said it was illegal?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499025&page=2

You're putting words into my mouth again. Where did I say it was illegal? Please read the whole post. I said it wasn't entirely legal if he was saying it from the pulpit (which you yourself agreed on in a later post), otherwise it's bad form.

Then I merely reaffirmed the stance that the Pope was in his right to do such.

A matter of sheer opinion. If you would believe in the Papacy obviously you wouldn't be protestant so hardly relevant now is it.

That's not even a proper sentence. Can you write this in English, please?


I see none of the theological constraints you see, also your "made-up" line of previous popes is not a proven fact but also a point of view and theory, as is your entitled right to believe in.

It is a proven fact. There was not one leader of the Church for many centuries. I'm sorry that you're unaware of it. I am not, however, restricted by your ignorance of history.


Also how does the pope not serve? Does the pope have any personal possession, does a priest have any personal possession. No they do not, they have everything on loan from their congregation, hence they serve those who follow them.

Does the Church he is the head of have any personal possessions? Yes. He lives on one of the most opulent palaces in the world as head of the richest organization in the world. What's the difference if he doesn't own the palace he lives in and that he doesn't own the limo he rides in.


Peter was the first pope by the word of Christ himself, so with obvious logic since Peter was the first bishop of Rome, the next pope would also be the bishop of Rome, so yes there is a papal line with Christ at its head.

Peter was called Pope by Christ himself. Can you please quote Christ saying so? He called him the foundation of the Church, not the head of it. And when the disciples argued about it, he said that it is a secular belief to look for a head in such a way and that it had no place in His Church as quoted in the passage I gave you.

Meanwhile, you've not addressed many of the arguments about the titles the Pope claims. You've not addressed the argument that Christ is the One Shepard according to the words of Christ Himself. You've not addressed that the Church cannot have two heads or are you denying that Christ is the head of the Church. You've not addressed that papal infallability didn't exist as a tenet of faith until a century and a half ago and that the pope at that time took on the infallability of the Church. Christ's Church and Christ's infallability. You've not addressed that at the time of Peter and immediately after the Church was run by a group of leaders not a single leader. You've not addressed the majority of the argument in the post you're replying to.

But, hey, why don't you start calling me names like you've done to everyone else who has annihilated your arguments thus far.

Try picking up a history book that tells you all of the history that isn't in the Bible. There's a lot of it and it's very pertinant to the current position of the Church.

Then I merely reaffirmed the stance that the Pope was in his right to do such.

And that took you nearly 13 pages of name-calling? Wow.

Then I merely reaffirmed the stance that the Pope was in his right to do such.

Just as she was in her right to call him a prick.

And that took you nearly 13 pages of name-calling? Wow.

Hey, he only has like 20% of all his posts on NS in this thread. Apparently it takes 30 posts to say "The Pope is entitled to his opinion, idiot!"

I had to add the "idiot" to make it sound more like a post from him.

Hey, he only has like 20% of all his posts on NS in this thread. Apparently it takes 30 posts to say "The Pope is entitled to his opinion, idiot!"

I had to add the "idiot" to make it sound more like a post from him.

naa, add bigot or intolerant and it would sound like me :P

naa, add bigot or intolerant and it would sound like me :P

Na gut...

The guy just admitted his style of arguing, people...

Bitte!

Whether he has a right or not, doesn't stop him from being a dick.

Please name a pro-homosexual Pope. You have 2000 years of them to look through. :p

Erm, why the hell is this so terrible? You didn't expect the head of the catholic church to think otherwise did you?

"In the name of tolerance, your country has had to endure the folly of the
redefinition of spouse," the Pope told a group of bishops from Ontario. "In the
name of freedom of choice, it is confronted with the daily destruction of
unborn children."I wish he hadn't said that. My fundamentalist conservative friends were only just beginning to come around. Bad timing.

For the first time in my life, I publicly applaud the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church!

*gives standing ovation*

For the first time in my life, I publicly applaud the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church!

*gives standing ovation*

Yeah, let's all give a big ovation to people that are so insecure about their own sexuality that they want to prevent gays from getting married so they reassure themselves that they hate that lifestyle, as opposed to secretly enjoying the idea like most anti-gay bigots to...

Yeah, let's all give a big ovation to people that are so insecure about their own sexuality that they want to prevent gays from getting married so they reassure themselves that they hate that lifestyle, as opposed to secretly enjoying the idea like most anti-gay bigots to...

Well, I'm an anti-homosexual(ity, but then it's not an adjective) gay, so you're really not going to be able to change my mind by calling me a bigot.

There is nothing surprising about Benedict's position. And it is also important to remember that the Church tries not to be influenced by public opinion. I think it speaks well of the effort of numerous conservative politicians who managed to get so many to believe the Church and religion in general was conservative. How often does one hear of the Church's anti-capital punishment stance, or its support of affordable housing? Virtually never.

The Catholic Church is not intolerant of any people. What it is intolerant of is what it sees as sins. Of course, everyone sins, and so to say the Church hates gays is wrong because 1) it is against the actions of gays, not the individuals and 2) it doesn't hate them because of their actions either because that would make all six billion people on earth enemies of the Church. I personally do not agree with all the actions the Church finds wrong, but it is important to remember that it doesn't extend its hatred of sin to the sinners.

Of course, there are people within the Church, even within the clergy, that are intolerant of people. And the Church has in the past acted upon its intolerance to a horrific point. But that is because of the people in the Church, who are also sinners and imperfect (some more than others).

It's hardly a surprise that the Pope is against gay marriage and abortion, but Ben is especially strident about it. As a Catholic I don't like him that much. He won't last long.

Well, I'm an anti-homosexual(ity, but then it's not an adjective) gay, so you're really not going to be able to change my mind by calling me a bigot.

Kiddo did you ask your mom if you could use the computer.

Please name a pro-homosexual Pope. You have 2000 years of them to look through. :p

Society has advanced in the last 2000 years.

Can you name many forward thinking Popes and why?

Kiddo did you ask your mom if you could use the computer.

:confused: I'm on my own computer in my dorm.

:confused: I'm on my own computer in my dorm.

You're in college and you didn't notice that sentence was not the defense you think it was? Seriously?

You're in college and you didn't notice that sentence was not the defense you think it was? Seriously?

What is your problem? Can you say anything without being insulting?

I don't understand what his question has anything to do with what I said. Unless it is in referrence to the idea that I would have to be very young and immature to hold an idea like the one I hold.

What is your problem? Can you say anything without being insulting?

I don't understand what his question has anything to do with what I said. Unless it is in referrence to the idea that I would have to be very young and immature to hold an idea like the one I hold.

Or that your response wasn't a response to what you replied to or at least not a reasonable one. That was his point. Such issues are a bit more common in the young, unfortunately. I blame parenting.

I find your post insulting. It shows a sad misunderstanding of the leader of the Church, Christ, and His message.

Or that your response wasn't a response to what you replied to or at least not a reasonable one. That was his point. Such issues are a bit more common in the young, unfortunately. I blame parenting.

I find your post insulting. It shows a sad misunderstanding of the leader of the Church, Christ, and His message.

Or it shows that you've fallen into the trap of "Love and Unity over Purity."

He called me a bigot, I said no. I can't be a true bigot, because I myself would be hating myself: I am gay.

Does that bother you? It shouldn't. I'm only depriving myself of sin.

Or it shows that you've fallen into the trap of "Love and Unity over Purity."

He called me a bigot, I said no. I can't be a true bigot, because I myself would be hating myself: I am gay.

Does that bother you? It shouldn't. I'm only depriving myself of sin.

And that's why we wanted to know if you were a child. Most adults know that being part of a group doesn't exclude you from be bigotted against them. It's unfortunate that an adult is that clueless about the meaning of the word. You are, in fact, a true bigot.

Bigot - : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance

Now, can you show me where in that definition it says it doesn't count if you're a member of the group? It doesn't. And that you don't know that was the reason for the question.

Well, I'm an anti-homosexual(ity, but then it's not an adjective) gay, so you're really not going to be able to change my mind by calling me a bigot.

*Chuckle* It would seem that being called a bigot would be the least of your problems. Please do update us on the state of your well-being after another decade of repression and self-loathing. I'm sure you'll make a fascinating case study, though certainly not the first.

"The trap of 'Love and Unity over Purity'"...are you a Christian? How many of those old purity laws are in place as of the time of Jesus message (trap?) of "Love and Unity?"

*Chuckle* It would seem that being called a bigot would be the least of your problems. Please do update us on the state of your well-being after another decade of repression and self-loathing. I'm sure you'll make a fascinating case study, though certainly not the first.

"The trap of 'Love and Unity over Purity'"...are you a Christian? How many of those old purity laws are in place as of the time of Jesus message (trap?) of "Love and Unity?"

Yes, he's a Christian. He seems to forget the message and he has openly admitted that he edits the message of Jesus with the message of Paul. Apparently, for some Christians it's not about who said what but about who spoke last and words of a man we believe to be a prophet trump the words of a man we believe to be God. Interesting how that works know? I didn't know my spirit was subject to last touch rules. I bet you didn't either.

Yes, he's a Christian. He seems to forget the message and he has openly admitted that he edits the message of Jesus with the message of Paul. Apparently, for some Christians it's not about who said what but about who spoke last and words of a man we believe to be a prophet trump the words of a man we believe to be God. Interesting how that works know? I didn't know my spirit was subject to last touch rules. I bet you didn't either.

Well, for some religious folks it may be more a matter of who spoke more specifically. Not that this is true of this person in particular, but a lot of people adopt religion because they need to be given rules by which to live because that's easier than having to discern them for themselves. Jesus's message was simple, and that might make the specific directives of Paul look very appealing...especially if you've been raised on socially conservative beliefs. Confirmation bias would make it very easy, then, to choose the prophet over the Source.

Yeah, but what does any of that have to do with him discharging his duties? Is Jesus Christ really the sort of guy who wants intolerance and gender-based repression perpetuated in his name - and expressly, yet - by the man hand-picked as Peter's Successor?

Unsurprisingly, Benedict is thoroughly disappointing.

Two things.

First, what he is doing is exactly the same as any right-wing religous leader. Being in a position of secular power invariably corrupts all religous institutions. That's why the politically connected Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell keep encouraging people to vote Republican. Jerry Falwell has explicitly told his flock that he hopes his followers "will be the most intolerant people in the world," (direct quote) in a sermon that he called "the myth of tolerance." It was delivered in the same speach where he was hawking his "argue against the DaVinci Code" kit. Because his followers aren't able to follow arguments that don't come in a box.

Those who know of my usual posting style may think this is hyperbole. It isn't (except maybe for the "thoughts in a box bit"). I'm relating exactly what I saw when I was stopped channel surfing on PAX for a minute.

Second, something can't be unsurprising and diappointing. A surprise is when expectations exist and something else happens. Disappointment is when expectations exist and something less happens. Disappointment is just sad surprise.

Yes, he's a Christian. He seems to forget the message and he has openly admitted that he edits the message of Jesus with the message of Paul. Apparently, for some Christians it's not about who said what but about who spoke last and words of a man we believe to be a prophet trump the words of a man we believe to be God. Interesting how that works know? I didn't know my spirit was subject to last touch rules. I bet you didn't either.

Well then. I guess all of Christandom should convert to Islam. Oh, wait. I guess Christians, Muslims, and Mormons should all become Moonies.

I wish he hadn't said that. My fundamentalist conservative friends were only just beginning to come around. Bad timing.

Well this should help. Fundies hate all things catholic.

Well then. I guess all of Christandom should convert to Islam. Oh, wait. I guess Christians, Muslims, and Mormons should all become Moonies.

I think we should try and rid ourselves from all forms of organised religion.
Not religion as such - some people still abviously feel a need for it. But I've really had it with the damage that religious organisations do.

Well, I'm an anti-homosexual(ity, but then it's not an adjective) gay, so you're really not going to be able to change my mind by calling me a bigot.

So you can tell people "see you in hell," and be quite friendly about it?

It's so rare to encounter such a devoted hypocrite. Usually they try to use a bunch of weasel words to explain away contradictions between their behavior and beliefs. You just put it right out there. If only more conservatives could admit that they feel the way they do because they hate what they are we'd be half way towards fixing the world.

Just because you tolerate something - the definition of which is being merely able to stand it - doesn't mean you have to embrace it or even like it.

I tolerate quite a few types of people I dislike. Take idiots for example. I strongly dislike them. Do I begrudge them their idiocy? Yes. Am I forced to tolerate their idiocy because it's a free society? Yes. Does that mean I embrace the ways of idiots, and believe that they have the freedom to do whatever? No. But I have to tolerate them, because they're people too.

But it seems to me the OP is being intolerant of the Catholic church's right to have an opinion. Also, I saw nothing in that article where the pope encouraged his people to treat gays badly.

I'm sure what the church thinks has no bearing on Canada's government or the actions of the gay populace, because I don't think Catholics and gays probably have a big crossover audience - correct me if I'm wrong. And really, is it that big of a shock that an institution that's anti-gay is upset about a country allowing gay marriage?

Society has advanced in the last 2000 years.

Can you name many forward thinking Popes and why?
John Paul II, relentlessly strove for peace and unity of the world's religions.

I think we should try and rid ourselves from all forms of organised religion.
Not religion as such - some people still abviously feel a need for it. But I've really had it with the damage that religious organisations do.
Many religious charities do anything but damage to the third world communities they aid.

And that's why we wanted to know if you were a child. Most adults know that being part of a group doesn't exclude you from be bigotted against them. It's unfortunate that an adult is that clueless about the meaning of the word. You are, in fact, a true bigot.

Bigot - : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance

Now, can you show me where in that definition it says it doesn't count if you're a member of the group? It doesn't. And that you don't know that was the reason for the question.

Theoretically, yes, I can be a bigot against a group I am a member of. But practically, no, it would cause too much emotional strife and self-hate for me or my bigoted feelings to last long.

*Chuckle* It would seem that being called a bigot would be the least of your problems. Please do update us on the state of your well-being after another decade of repression and self-loathing. I'm sure you'll make a fascinating case study, though certainly not the first.

"The trap of 'Love and Unity over Purity'"...are you a Christian? How many of those old purity laws are in place as of the time of Jesus message (trap?) of "Love and Unity?"

Sadly, very few. When the theocracies fell, so did the purity laws.

So you can tell people "see you in hell," and be quite friendly about it?

It's so rare to encounter such a devoted hypocrite. Usually they try to use a bunch of weasel words to explain away contradictions between their behavior and beliefs. You just put it right out there. If only more conservatives could admit that they feel the way they do because they hate what they are we'd be half way towards fixing the world.

I've never told anyone that they were going to hell.

Theoretically, yes, I can be a bigot against a group I am a member of. But practically, no, it would cause too much emotional strife and self-hate for me or my bigoted feelings to last long.

And it is this statement that makes people wonder about your age in the first place, it reflects a remarkable ignorance of history. Some of the most dangerous racists were attacking their own races. Bigotry is often enacted by members of their own group. There are several advanced theories that among the most aggressive of homosexual haters are closet homosexuals, and in ssome cases this has born out, though for obvious reasons I have a hard time accepting that such a theory can be based on more than speculation.

However, practically, being a member of a group has proven in history to not prevent bigotry against that group by that member.

By the way, a very wise man once warned that trying to pull the weeds would damage the wheat. And in attempting to attacking the 'wicked' in the Church, it certainly has damaged the wheat. Splitting the sects, hardening the hearts of many, creating groups that advocate violence and murder in the name of the Lord. Wow, this wise man was very wise indeed to see this comming millenia in advance. I wonder what His name was. (Hint: it wasn't Paul)

So...

Edwardis tries to contradict my claim that anti-gay people are actually gays by saying that he (anti-gay) is... gay.

I'm done here. I've argued with many people, but I never saw such a nice and clear shot in the foot as this one.

By the way, for everyone else, purity laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Racial_Purity_Laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reich_Citizenship_Law

I don't know, to me it seems pretty understandable that someone as intelligent as Edwardis has, so far, shown himself to be, supports this kind of thing.

The pope is a fucktard.

There. It has been said.

The pope is a fucktard.

There. It has been said.

While I do agree with the spirit of your point, I wish you would elaborate, and join us in this discussion.

Hi there Ska. How's tricks?

There've been good and bad Popes before. Just compare John Paul II to someone like Gregory II or so (please, no one go after Pius XII anymore, that's getting old). As God's earthly proxy, each Pope does what he feels to be right in accordance with Canon Law and Christian faith. But because they're human, they can have human fallacies. Besides, if you read your Catechism (probably no one ownes one) it clearly states that bigotry against homosexuality is against Church teachings.

For Dogma we would kill even our founder.
-Father Maxwell, the Vatican's Section XIII Iscariot

By the way, a very wise man once warned that trying to pull the weeds would damage the wheat. And in attempting to attacking the 'wicked' in the Church, it certainly has damaged the wheat. Splitting the sects, hardening the hearts of many, creating groups that advocate violence and murder in the name of the Lord. Wow, this wise man was very wise indeed to see this comming millenia in advance. I wonder what His name was. (Hint: it wasn't Paul)

That isn't the argument here. Stay on topic.

So...

Edwardis tries to contradict my claim that anti-gay people are actually gays by saying that he (anti-gay) is... gay.

I'm done here. I've argued with many people, but I never saw such a nice and clear shot in the foot as this one.

By the way, for everyone else, purity laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Racial_Purity_Laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reich_Citizenship_Law

I don't know, to me it seems pretty understandable that someone as intelligent as Edwardis has, so far, shown himself to be, supports this kind of thing.

If that was what you were saying, I totally misunderstood you and apologize for that. And I am not for purity laws in the sense of ethnic cleansing or any such thing. I am talking about laws which demand purity in activity: it is not sexually pure to rape someone, so we have laws requiring sexual purity. All laws, though, should be based on the Law, which explains exactly what purity of action is, and therefore what purity of thought is.

If that was what you were saying, I totally misunderstood you and apologize for that. And I am not for purity laws in the sense of ethnic cleansing or any such thing. I am talking about laws which demand purity in activity: it is not sexually pure to rape someone, so we have laws requiring sexual purity. All laws, though, should be based on the Law, which explains exactly what purity of action is, and therefore what purity of thought is.

The Law as in the Old Testament?

Whew! Good, here was I thinking you wanted a nazi state, and it turns out you only want a fundamentalist theocratical dystopia based on a myth!

Good thing that we got THAT cleared up, isn't it?

That isn't the argument here. Stay on topic.

No, you dropped the argument and it is germaine to the argument. The problem that people who are divisive like you have is that people in the past have taught you that you are in a position to discriminate weed from wheat and to drive it out and in doing so damaged your roots. As a result you've grown away from the teachings of love for our fellow man. You are a perfect example of why Jesus warned against your behavior, because you are a result of similar behavior by those that came before you.

I hope your roots heal and that you grow straight and strong to preach the message of love given by the one true Christ.

If that was what you were saying, I totally misunderstood you and apologize for that. And I am not for purity laws in the sense of ethnic cleansing or any such thing. I am talking about laws which demand purity in activity: it is not sexually pure to rape someone, so we have laws requiring sexual purity. All laws, though, should be based on the Law, which explains exactly what purity of action is, and therefore what purity of thought is.

Really? So you've never worn cotton and wool at the same time or worn a blend? You've never sat with a woman while she was on her menses, right?

Jesus Christ summed the Law up for us. Love God, love everyone else. Period. Straight and to the point. You have explicitly argued to do otherwise.

Let me make a point here of saying that I criticized the pope, not your people. Germany has the best musical history in the world, I myself wrote something pointing out that the current Germans did nothing wrong and thus should not be ashamed or punished when I visited Dachau, and his accusation of racism stems from nothing but the fact that I disagree with him about the current pope. He's not a dog because he's German, he's a dog because he looks like one. :p
I apologize for any misunderstanding here. I only used "German Shepherd" because it could be applied in a joke about Herr Ratzlinger. My father speaks German and taught me some, I've been to München and find German culture to be great, its main figures in the music, but the fine arts as well. München is a great city, with a great subway system that we lack here in Brazil. And our "races", as much as Cybach wants to cry racism (which he did NOT cry out against Deep Kimchi when he said all Arabs should be exterminated, to show you how convenient it is for him), are not that different, since I descend from slovaks.
By the way, if you ever happen to be in München, go to Donisl. Great place.
TGed you about it - thanks, mate!
Anyway, the Emperor is touring Bavaria right now and he's all over the tellie - so I didn't get back to this thread to read you answer until now, I've had enough of him already ;) . All is cool! :p

Isn't that the Pope's job, to be officially intolerant of anything that isn't Catholic? Isn't that why he wears that funny hat?

Society has advanced in the last 2000 years.

Can you name many forward thinking Popes and why?

Advanced? Some would say "fallen into depravity"! FYI, not everyone considers "affirming homosexuality to be good = advancement".

Sure! How about John XXIII & Paul VI for Vatican II?

Advanced? Some would say "fallen into depravity"! FYI, not everyone considers "affirming homosexuality to be good = advancement".

Sure! How about John XXIII & Paul VI for Vatican II?

Well, we all know that some people would rather live under the Taliban regime or its Christian counterpart, the regime depicted in The Handmaid's Tale. But, then again, some people are morons.

Advanced? Some would say "fallen into depravity"! FYI, not everyone considers "affirming homosexuality to be good = advancement".
Do you actually believe what you're writing?

No? Didn't think so?

I've seen your posts, you're just one of these guys who loves to bait liberals.

The Law as in the Old Testament?

Whew! Good, here was I thinking you wanted a nazi state, and it turns out you only want a fundamentalist theocratical dystopia based on a myth!

Good thing that we got THAT cleared up, isn't it?

Yes, isn't it good. Now you can hang me (figuratively) for something I'm actually guilty of. :)

Society has advanced in the last 2000 years.

Can you name many forward thinking Popes and why?

It doesn't work like that, the Catholic church will not change their cor beliefs to join the subjective "21st century". If they do, then i would heavily criticize them for being incosistant. Even though I already criticize them with their policies.

It doesn't work like that, the Catholic church will not change their cor beliefs to join the subjective "21st century". If they do, then i would heavily criticize them for being incosistant. Even though I already criticize them with their policies.

Well, nobody expects them to. They can still refuse to marry people because they are gay or because they had meat on a Friday... that's their right as a church.
And they can still walk proud and declare that homosexuals are sinners, that's well within their rights as well.

But they cannot demand that legislation follows their religious believes. They cannot demand all butchers worldwide to close down on Fridays and not sell meat, and in the same way they can't demand that a government withholds rights form one group of citizens that it does grant to all others.

Yes, isn't it good. Now you can hang me (figuratively) for something I'm actually guilty of. :)

Ah, I see. You're no different from the Taliban then. Good we got that cleared up. But let me inform you that the kind of state you wish will never come to be. There will be always people to prevent it, and there will be always hope. I will always be allowed to be an occultist, and the lady next door will always be allowed to be a hare krishna. And your god can't do a thing.

Well, nobody expects them to. They can still refuse to marry people because they are gay or because they had meat on a Friday... that's their right as a church.
And they can still walk proud and declare that homosexuals are sinners, that's well within their rights as well.

But they cannot demand that legislation follows their religious believes. They cannot demand all butchers worldwide to close down on Fridays and not sell meat, and in the same way they can't demand that a government withholds rights form one group of citizens that it does grant to all others.

Precisely.

It doesn't work like that, the Catholic church will not change their cor beliefs to join the subjective "21st century". If they do, then i would heavily criticize them for being incosistant. Even though I already criticize them with their policies.

If you want inconsistency in the Church, just look at its history. You don't need them changing anything right this moment to find it.

It doesn't work like that, the Catholic church will not change their cor beliefs to join the subjective "21st century". If they do, then i would heavily criticize them for being incosistant. Even though I already criticize them with their policies.

Ah, but they have changed, albeit slowly. I don't believe that the Catholic Church insists that the Sun orbits the Earth any longer. I think there was also some muttering about that Galileo fellow having maybe had a good point or two.

It would not be inconsistent for the Church to change its stance on any issue, it would be divine enlightenment. Granted it would take very long time, but it could happen.

As for forward-looking Popes, I think John XXIII was one. John Paul I might have been one had he lived. In some ways John Paul II looked ahead, but in many he was very conservative. And that's really the point: the Church always will be a conservative organization.

the Church always will be a conservative organization.

Of course. The Church had power in the past, thus it will (like any conservative) look to change things back to the way they were in the past.

Well, nobody expects them to. They can still refuse to marry people because they are gay or because they had meat on a Friday... that's their right as a church.
And they can still walk proud and declare that homosexuals are sinners, that's well within their rights as well.

But they cannot demand that legislation follows their religious believes. They cannot demand all butchers worldwide to close down on Fridays and not sell meat, and in the same way they can't demand that a government withholds rights form one group of citizens that it does grant to all others.

Well, the Pope certainly isn't doing that with canada. But if he decides to have an excommunication with another country, that is on the grounds that the vatican and the country have broken the terms of the allience. So they have every right to do that.

Ah, but they have changed, albeit slowly. I don't believe that the Catholic Church insists that the Sun orbits the Earth any longer. I think there was also some muttering about that Galileo fellow having maybe had a good point or two.

It would not be inconsistent for the Church to change its stance on any issue, it would be divine enlightenment. Granted it would take very long time, but it could happen.

As for forward-looking Popes, I think John XXIII was one. John Paul I might have been one had he lived. In some ways John Paul II looked ahead, but in many he was very conservative. And that's really the point: the Church always will be a conservative organization.

I guess you are right. The catholic church has always been very Incosistant with the Bible. However, they are not comitting some huge sin if they decide to stay consistant with their current doctorine for a few years or so.