The Pope Is Nearly Dead/dead
antichrist
Join Date: 2003-05-27 Member: 16769Members
Join Date: 2003-05-27 Member: 16769Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">what do/did you think of him?</div> Well it seems the pope is dead/ will be dead pretty soon so how do you think he did?
In my opinion (though I know he did all this charity stuff) I didn't like him for his conservative views ie condoms don't prevent aids. I'm hoping for a liberal this time round but what do you think?
In my opinion (though I know he did all this charity stuff) I didn't like him for his conservative views ie condoms don't prevent aids. I'm hoping for a liberal this time round but what do you think?
Comments
..
If you wanted a liberal pope you should revert to the lutheran church.
Unfortunately, the next pope is likely to be more conservative, not less.
..
If you wanted a liberal pope you should revert to the lutheran church. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For now I m athiest but looking into other things. Sad it will be another conservative <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Edit - 4 edits! damn spelling! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In my opinion (though I know he did all this charity stuff) I didn't like him for his conservative views ie condoms don't prevent aids. I'm hoping for a liberal this time round but what do you think? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think your an athiest - why do you care if the next pope is a liberal or not?
In my opinion (though I know he did all this charity stuff) I didn't like him for his conservative views ie condoms don't prevent aids. I'm hoping for a liberal this time round but what do you think? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think your an athiest - why do you care if the next pope is a liberal or not? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well in my spare time I help sufferers with HIV (councilling) and it's sad for me to see influencal people saying condoms don't help in anyway against prevention. I know your going to say 'catholics don't approve of sex other than children making' but it is one of the few rules alot of religious people don't agree with and will do it anyway.
edit: I stated that I were athiest in the post above yours <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm not very familiar with how a Pope works; do they really have that much power? Could a new one change a whole lot of things? Or are they some sort of figurehead?
Edit - I really need to improve my English <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Wikipedia ftw
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Status_and_authority' target='_blank'>Pope</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The powers of the Pope are defined by the Dogmatic Constitution (ch.3, s.8) such that "he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgement" and that "the sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgement thereupon" (can. 331 defines the power of the Pope as "supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power"). It also dogmatically defined (ch.4, s.9) the doctrine of Papal infallibility, sc. such that
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, he does hold that much power, in the church only. Oh, and in Vatican city, since that is a church/state.
I'm not very familiar with how a Pope works; do they really have that much power? Could a new one change a whole lot of things? Or are they some sort of figurehead? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cyn Post alot of big words... Let me break it down for you:
For Catholics, the Pope is the highest power on earth. It is assumed that God and the Pope share a sort of symbiotic relationship, for we believe that the pope can even change heavenly policies.
"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heave, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Gods words to our first pope. We first assume this is exactly what was said, then we also take it at perfect face value: If the pope says you're going to hell, no matter his reasons, you are going to hell, and there's not one damned thing you can do.
So there you have it. Among Catholics, the Pope is very powerful, indeed.
Basically, the doctrine states that popes are infallible (they don't make mistakes). Usually, this is interpreted as "moments" of infallibility - usually surrounding a specific decree that they are making - though some believe that popes are infallible all the time.
The uses of this doctrine are readily apparent - if someone is truely infallible (either momentarily, or continually) and those infallible moments are as though God was speaking - wouldn't that person then deserve obedience (presumably even durring fallable moments). Also, while such an infallable person exists, there is no way to remove them from their post. The person is the mouth of God, and as such is accountable only to God.
Other doctrinal errors also creep in. The current pope at one time gave the "children of the world" over to Mary's keeping. Disregarding one's position on Mary, such a statement has huge theological ramifications when addressing abortion issues, salvation for infants, child suicide bombers... you get the picture.
If you look at the Bible for support, you realize that there is never a situation where somone (other than Jesus) is ever given "infallibility". In fact, it seems to be something claimed purely by the RCC Popes.
Also, if you look at their main support verse "in context" - you get a different story all together.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->15“If your brother sins against you,[b] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c] 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18“I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be[d]bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.
19“Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As you can see - binding and loosing is given to the church - or at least to more than one person. It is a matter of discipline - not a matter of power. The purpose is to allow a church to look at a sinning memeber - one who is not repentant - and remove them from the church, the penalty being damnation.
Thats all I got for now.
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/31/vatican.****.marriages/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/31....****.marriages/</a>
I don't like the pope. I won't like the new pope, either, for the same reasons.
he is unconcious
Well, at least he didn't have to suffer. Thank God that there is no 13 year long struggle between rival Vatican groups battling to take out or keep in his feeding tube.
He's still alive, the same agency that said he was in a coma this morning, which was false has jumped the gun with his death.
I don't what this Italian news agency is but it sucks, I would ignore them from now on.
Now he has died.
I have a friend whose family moved here from Poland when he was a little kid; he has a picture with the Pope holding him in his arms.
Just helps to put a human perspective on someone who seemed so far away.
(edited for optimism.)
He was a Man who gathered all nations, all religions together. He was a Man who opened church to the people. Most-traveled and most-caring Pope ever. And Let's hope, the next pope will follow his path.
PS. I never saw all the televisions shut down when a "famous" person died. He's truly a champion who deserves a prayer.
~ Zeromancer.
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/31/vatican.****.marriages/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/31...****.marriages/</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is why I said it. There are more article. He was probably one of the worst bigots alive. The fact he could influence all of Catholic ideals made him that much worse.
*edit* Stupid swear filter of the forums.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b> CNN Article above </b>
VATICAN CITY (CNN) -- The Vatican has launched a global campaign against **** marriages, warning Catholic politicians that support of same-sex unions is "gravely immoral."
The Vatican issued a 12-page set of guidelines with the approval of Pope John Paul II in a bid to stem the increase in laws granting legal rights to homosexual unions in Europe and North America.
"Marriage exists solely between a man and woman ... Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law," the 12-page document by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said Thursday.
"Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior ... but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity."
The document, which has been two years in the making, calls on Roman Catholic lawmakers to vote against bills legalizing **** marriage, and where they already exist, work towards repealing them.
It does not list strictures, such as excommunication, against those who rebuff the church on the matter.
"To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral," the document said.
Countries which already have relaxed laws to same sex unions include the Netherlands and Belgium.
It is the second time this year the Vatican has formally issued the instruction, and mirrors similar comments made by U.S. President George W. Bush Wednesday.
The president said: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another." (Full Story)
**** marriage is forbidden in the U.S. though the question of **** marriage has moved to the foreground of American politics after a Supreme Court decision in June which struck down state laws banning sodomy.
One state, Vermont, allows same-sex civil unions, and Massachusetts' top court is set to rule on the issue soon. (Full story)
Canada courts have recently recognized **** marriages heralding hundreds to tie the knot in Ontario and British Columbia.
The Vatican's document -- "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons" -- also denounces **** couples adopting children.
"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such (homosexual) unions would actually mean doing violence to these children ... (placing) them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development."
In Europe, the Netherlands has recognized registered **** partnerships since 1998 with Belgium following suit in January this year.
The Netherlands also passed laws in December 2000 allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt children.
Several other countries have given *** rights just short of those enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are quoting from two sources that are against the church and this pope. You should know that the story lies somewhere in between, in this day in age in media, and especially ion the internet, many discussions and reportages are heavily biased to their side of the story.
In his view, Marriage exists solely between a man and woman ... Marriage is holy, while the homosexual <b>acts</b> go against the <b>natural</b> moral law.
He was just saying that a homosexual can not get married and that the act goes against nature in that it does not carry out the function of reproduction. If that is what he beleives then so be it.Why is that so demeaning? Homosexuals can still exist, and continue to exist in peace, he does not say the homosexual man/woman should be damned/burned/stabbed etc.
( I have no problems with homosexuals.)
The man had his flaws, like all <b> humans </b> (coz he is) but for you to basically say good riddence is frankly shocking.
He was a Man who gathered all nations, all religions together. He was a Man who opened church to the people. Most-traveled and most-caring Pope ever. And Let's hope, the next pope will follow his path.
PS. I never saw all the televisions shut down when a "famous" person died. He's truly a champion who deserves a prayer.
~ Zeromancer. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes! Gather them all to fight the dirty mud races, destroy the homosexual!
PURGE THE HERETIC!!
Champion? Of what, the contest of who can insult millions of humans intelligence and integrity for the selfish and false promise of salvation? Please, I stopped having an imaginary friend when I was 6.
NEVER did he say that homosexual man/woman should be damned/burned/stabbed etc.
Read some, think some, post some dont just try to taunt other people into flaming...
(edited for optimism.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The next one will be just as much a "bigot" as this one was, as well the next, and the one after him.
You have to look at this from a Catholic point of view, they think what they are doing is right, and that homosexual marriages are unnatural and evil.
I personally have no problem with homosexual marriages and I certainly don’t see it as evil, however it is rather unnatural simply from a scientific standpoint, and causes me to raise an eyebrow every so often.
In his mind he was defending The Church.
Now you know I'm hardly what one would call a faithful Catholic, but I was raised as one and educated only in Catholic schools, suffice to say I know how they think.
Besides to judge him on this one issue is a bit one sided, the man has done many great things, and even I, no fan of The Church, respected him.
NEVER did he say that homosexual man/woman should be damned/burned/stabbed etc.
Read some, think some, post some dont just try to taunt other people into flaming... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
A zealot like you is telling me to think, thats golden. I think I will sig that.
( I have no problems with homosexuals.)
The man had his flaws, like all humans (coz he is) but for you to basically say good riddence is frankly shocking.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesn't seem like much of a zealot, Commie. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You can be religious without being blindly religious (aka "a zealot").
The first site probably is, but then I just quoted didn't look at the links. It wouldn't suprise me though.
You have to look at this from a Catholic point of view, they think what they are doing is right, and that homosexual marriages are unnatural and evil.
I personally have no problem with homosexual marriages and I certainly don’t see it as evil, however it is rather unnatural simply from a scientific standpoint, and causes me to raise an eyebrow every so often.
In his mind he was defending The Church.
Now you know I'm hardly what one would call a faithful Catholic, but I was raised as one and educated only in Catholic schools, suffice to say I know how they think.
Besides to judge him on this one issue is a bit one sided, the man has done many great things, and even I, no fan of The Church, respected him. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem wasn't that he was against **** marriage (or female priests or celibate **** priests or using condoms to prevent AIDS). The problem was that he prioritized them.
There are dozens of other issues that are far more important to the Catholic Church, to Catholics, Christians, and humanity that he could have used his tremendous influence to pursue.
I don't like to Godwinize, but this statement:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You have to look at this from a Catholic point of view, they think what they are doing is right, and that homosexual marriages are unnatural and evil.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
is just as justified as this statement:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You have to look at this from a Nazi point of view, they think what they are doing is right, and that Jews are unnatural and evil.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most people do what they think is right, but you can still heavily criticize them for it.
( I have no problems with homosexuals.)
The man had his flaws, like all humans (coz he is) but for you to basically say good riddence is frankly shocking.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesn't seem like much of a zealot, Commie. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You can be religious without being blindly religious (aka "a zealot"). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Religion is a blindfold over the eyes of the world, any belief structure that has you thinking that a magical man in the sky is watching over you and he loves you is conveluded. If he loves humanity so much whats with all the suffering? Sorry, i won't let you use the phrases
Test of faith
God gave us free will
Or any other cop-out. Sorry :\
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, <b> religion </b>, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bolded for emphasis. :-)
(Date on CNN article is July of 2003. Some states held elections/legislation in 2004 against homosexual marriage.
*edited for analogy*
<!--QuoteBegin-resea+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (resea)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You have to look at this from a Catholic point of view, they think what they are doing is right, and that homosexual marriages are unnatural and evil.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fine then, you have to look at it from my egyptian point of view, your religion copied my legends and turned them to hate towards other people I am just doing what I think is right and telling people about it.