<!--QuoteBegin-SlayerX+Apr 2 2005, 04:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SlayerX @ Apr 2 2005, 04:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I just can't believe You said that...
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--> I'm not saying he never did anything "good"....
But frankly I'll save my tears for <a href='http://www.tibet.com/DL/nobelaccept.html' target='_blank'>H. H. the Dalai Lama</a>
Now that is someone who truly accomplishes the points you mention.
I'm Christian, not catholic. I never really "followed" the pope. I hear he was an OK guy... personally I see no need for a pope but if it makes all the Roman Catholics feel good then, why not?
<!--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-->(Steel Troll @ Apr 2 2005, 04:51 PM) Erm, did u even read my above post???
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-->
<!--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-->(CWAG)A zealot like you is telling me to think, thats golden. I think I will sig that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ROFL?? A Zealot is a fanatically committed person. Im not very even religious, i go to church like 1nce a year... ROFL How does stating that he never said harm homosexuals make me a zealot? and again i say ROFL! Just coz he helped topple Communism, no need to get touchy <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[EDIT] What i am trying to point out is the man never wanted his followers to hate homosexuals. He preached peace, but he beleived in his own views that the homosexual act was unnatural and wrong, he never said we must seek to harm any homosexual.I just cant understand why you find him so bad that you basicaly said good riddence at his death...have some respect and at least weigh out his pros and cons. No sane human being deserves a "Glad he's dead"...
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-->
<!--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-->(CWAG)A zealot like you is telling me to think, thats golden. I think I will sig that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ROFL?? A Zealot is a fanatically committed person. Im not very even religious, i go to church like 1nce a year... ROFL How does stating that he never said harm homosexuals make me a zealot? and again i say ROFL! Just coz he helped topple Communism, no need to get touchy <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[EDIT] What i am trying to point out is the man never wanted his followers to hate homosexuals. He preached peace, but he beleived in his own views that the homosexual act was unnatural and wrong, he never said we must seek to harm any homosexual.I just cant understand why you find him so bad that you basicaly said good riddence at his death...have some respect and at least weigh out his pros and cons. No sane human being deserves a "Glad he's dead"... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, he preaches catholocism, and I know that catholics abhore homosexuals/blacks/etc. My town is mostly catholic and it is a hotbed of racism and ignorance. Maybe I am biased because I live in a crappy town. Also, I gotta admit, you argue against yourself about being a zealot considering your fighting tooth and nail over a really old (now dead) bigot. Nuff said.
ROFL im **** myself with laughter, seriously. My dad is black, hes married to my mom, a white. They married in a catholic church, in Italy did the church have a problem? NO Could they get any closer to the vtican NO
Yes its probably coz you live in a crappy town where the heck do you live anyway. I only argued mainly coz i am just shocked at tthe lack of humanity in some of you, even if you dont beleive in God heaven etc, cut the guy some slack, he was a good human being, had a few flaws tried his best more so than others, caused a bit of friction with his views yer....
I dono, maybe im just easily shocked, maybe im more affected by his death as my grandad died a few months back... but i dont think he deserved that good riddence...
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-->
<!--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-->(CWAG)A zealot like you is telling me to think, thats golden. I think I will sig that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ROFL?? A Zealot is a fanatically committed person. Im not very even religious, i go to church like 1nce a year... ROFL How does stating that he never said harm homosexuals make me a zealot? and again i say ROFL! Just coz he helped topple Communism, no need to get touchy <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[EDIT] What i am trying to point out is the man never wanted his followers to hate homosexuals. He preached peace, but he beleived in his own views that the homosexual act was unnatural and wrong, he never said we must seek to harm any homosexual.I just cant understand why you find him so bad that you basicaly said good riddence at his death...have some respect and at least weigh out his pros and cons. No sane human being deserves a "Glad he's dead"... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, he preaches catholocism, and I know that catholics abhore homosexuals/blacks/etc. My town is mostly catholic and it is a hotbed of racism and ignorance. Maybe I am biased because I live in a crappy town. Also, I gotta admit, you argue against yourself about being a zealot considering your fighting tooth and nail over a really old (now dead) bigot. Nuff said. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The church preaches that *** are wrong, <b>but</b> we should forgive them. Key word is <b>forgive</b> not punish. I personally don't give *** a second thought.
I am reading through this thread and I hear people complaining that the church should be more acceptant towards ***. At the same time I hearing "glad there are dead" and "they are all bigots" coming from those same people. Since homosexualism seem to be a hot topic, i will use it. If I were to call all homosexuals limp wristed panseys, I would be wrong. Why? Because I am catagorizing. You are doing the same thing. The catholic church does not preach violence, they preach forgiveness. Just as a few feminie *** do not define the **** community, the few bigots do not define the church.
all the asterix = "men who prefer men, and women who prefer women" stoopid censors need to be changed for this particular part of the forums.
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-->
<!--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-->(CWAG)A zealot like you is telling me to think, thats golden. I think I will sig that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ROFL?? A Zealot is a fanatically committed person. Im not very even religious, i go to church like 1nce a year... ROFL How does stating that he never said harm homosexuals make me a zealot? and again i say ROFL! Just coz he helped topple Communism, no need to get touchy <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[EDIT] What i am trying to point out is the man never wanted his followers to hate homosexuals. He preached peace, but he beleived in his own views that the homosexual act was unnatural and wrong, he never said we must seek to harm any homosexual.I just cant understand why you find him so bad that you basicaly said good riddence at his death...have some respect and at least weigh out his pros and cons. No sane human being deserves a "Glad he's dead"... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, he preaches catholocism, and I know that catholics abhore homosexuals/blacks/etc. My town is mostly catholic and it is a hotbed of racism and ignorance. Maybe I am biased because I live in a crappy town. Also, I gotta admit, you argue against yourself about being a zealot considering your fighting tooth and nail over a really old (now dead) bigot. Nuff said. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The church preaches that *** are wrong, <b>but</b> we should forgive them. Key word is <b>forgive</b> not punish. I personally don't give *** a second thought.
I am reading through this thread and I hear people complaining that the church should be more acceptant towards ***. At the same time I hearing "glad there are dead" and "they are all bigots" coming from those same people. Since homosexualism seem to be a hot topic, i will use it. If I were to call all homosexuals limp wristed panseys, I would be wrong. Why? Because I am catagorizing. You are doing the same thing. The catholic church does not preach violence, they preach forgiveness. Just as a few feminie *** do not define the **** community, the few bigots do not define the church.
all the asterix = "men who prefer men, and women who prefer women" stoopid censors need to be changed for this particular part of the forums. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> so thats why the church waited to see who would win World war 2. Interesting, but no.
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-->
<!--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-->(CWAG)A zealot like you is telling me to think, thats golden. I think I will sig that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ROFL?? A Zealot is a fanatically committed person. Im not very even religious, i go to church like 1nce a year... ROFL How does stating that he never said harm homosexuals make me a zealot? and again i say ROFL! Just coz he helped topple Communism, no need to get touchy <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[EDIT] What i am trying to point out is the man never wanted his followers to hate homosexuals. He preached peace, but he beleived in his own views that the homosexual act was unnatural and wrong, he never said we must seek to harm any homosexual.I just cant understand why you find him so bad that you basicaly said good riddence at his death...have some respect and at least weigh out his pros and cons. No sane human being deserves a "Glad he's dead"... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, he preaches catholocism, and I know that catholics abhore homosexuals/blacks/etc. My town is mostly catholic and it is a hotbed of racism and ignorance. Maybe I am biased because I live in a crappy town. Also, I gotta admit, you argue against yourself about being a zealot considering your fighting tooth and nail over a really old (now dead) bigot. Nuff said. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The church preaches that *** are wrong, <b>but</b> we should forgive them. Key word is <b>forgive</b> not punish. I personally don't give *** a second thought.
I am reading through this thread and I hear people complaining that the church should be more acceptant towards ***. At the same time I hearing "glad there are dead" and "they are all bigots" coming from those same people. Since homosexualism seem to be a hot topic, i will use it. If I were to call all homosexuals limp wristed panseys, I would be wrong. Why? Because I am catagorizing. You are doing the same thing. The catholic church does not preach violence, they preach forgiveness. Just as a few feminie *** do not define the **** community, the few bigots do not define the church.
all the asterix = "men who prefer men, and women who prefer women" stoopid censors need to be changed for this particular part of the forums. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> so thats why the church waited to see who would win World war 2. Interesting, but no. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So with that I am suppose to hold the current German population responsible still for the holocaust? According to your logic I am.
Well, I'm pretty partial towards Christianity, and if you people define intolerance as openly disagreeing with others over one or more issues, then I'm a bigot.
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-->
<!--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-->(CWAG)A zealot like you is telling me to think, thats golden. I think I will sig that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ROFL?? A Zealot is a fanatically committed person. Im not very even religious, i go to church like 1nce a year... ROFL How does stating that he never said harm homosexuals make me a zealot? and again i say ROFL! Just coz he helped topple Communism, no need to get touchy <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[EDIT] What i am trying to point out is the man never wanted his followers to hate homosexuals. He preached peace, but he beleived in his own views that the homosexual act was unnatural and wrong, he never said we must seek to harm any homosexual.I just cant understand why you find him so bad that you basicaly said good riddence at his death...have some respect and at least weigh out his pros and cons. No sane human being deserves a "Glad he's dead"... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, he preaches catholocism, and I know that catholics abhore homosexuals/blacks/etc. My town is mostly catholic and it is a hotbed of racism and ignorance. Maybe I am biased because I live in a crappy town. Also, I gotta admit, you argue against yourself about being a zealot considering your fighting tooth and nail over a really old (now dead) bigot. Nuff said. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The church preaches that *** are wrong, <b>but</b> we should forgive them. Key word is <b>forgive</b> not punish. I personally don't give *** a second thought.
I am reading through this thread and I hear people complaining that the church should be more acceptant towards ***. At the same time I hearing "glad there are dead" and "they are all bigots" coming from those same people. Since homosexualism seem to be a hot topic, i will use it. If I were to call all homosexuals limp wristed panseys, I would be wrong. Why? Because I am catagorizing. You are doing the same thing. The catholic church does not preach violence, they preach forgiveness. Just as a few feminie *** do not define the **** community, the few bigots do not define the church.
all the asterix = "men who prefer men, and women who prefer women" stoopid censors need to be changed for this particular part of the forums. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> so thats why the church waited to see who would win World war 2. Interesting, but no. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So with that I am suppose to hold the current German population responsible still for the holocaust? According to your logic I am. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Just because this pope wasn't THAT bad, dosen't mean his hands are clean, I mean, how can someone like the pope but not the church, thats idiocy, because weather he admits it or not he MUST agree with their beliefs otherwise he wouldn't BE the pope.
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Apr 2 2005, 10:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Apr 2 2005, 10:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Just because this pope wasn't THAT bad, dosen't mean his hands are clean, I mean, how can someone like the pope but not the church, thats idiocy, because weather he admits it or not he MUST agree with their beliefs otherwise he wouldn't BE the pope. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually the Pope can change Catholic beliefs to <b>anything</b> he wants too.
"What ever is law on Earth shall be law in heaven"
Or something like that...
Technically the Pope can say that only homosexuals will go to heaven, and it should be so...but I'm sure they would come up with some crazy excuse to get around that...so maybe the Pope can't.
It's all fictional anyway so it’s hard to worry too much.
As I've said elsewhere, the Pope is a hero, even if I find his moral views on sexuality and end/start of life thing ridiculous. He helped defeat communism and bring a relative peace to the mordern world. That cannot be overlooked.
My evaluation:
Good Pope: -He oversaw vast reforms of the Church that would have been unthinkable under previous popes, but turned the church into one of the more progressive and positive religions around -More than any other single figure, this is the man who toppled Communism and pulled the rug out from any hope for the legitimacy of totalitarian regimes. While no single figure can claim a large portion of this vicotry, he has a larger share than most. Surprised by how quickly all of the Soviet Bloc fell? Then you probably weren't paying enough attention to this Pope -Showed Christlike devotion in meeting with and forgiving his attempted assasin. -Helped showed Christians that evolution wasn't an enemy of Christianity, but compatible and even helpful to Christian theology -Was basically a liberal on everything but social issues
Bad Pope -Really did nothing to take a stand against child abuse and molestation by Preists. Was probably at least partially complicit in the cover-ups. Likewise, gave little criticism to the excesses and coddling of rich Catholic criminals who gave stolen money to the Chruch -His views on sexuality and life, I personally find morally abhorrent -Kept in place the demands on contraception and STD teachings that probably expanded suffering greatly in the Third World and elsewhere -Most recently and bizarrely declared that people must be kept alive purely for the sake of keeping them alive.
I doubt the next pope will be anywhere near as impressive.
This pope, love or hate what he did, was probably the MOST important figure of the latter half of the 20th century.l
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Apr 2 2005, 10:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Apr 2 2005, 10:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Apr 2 2005, 10:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Apr 2 2005, 10:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Just because this pope wasn't THAT bad, dosen't mean his hands are clean, I mean, how can someone like the pope but not the church, thats idiocy, because weather he admits it or not he MUST agree with their beliefs otherwise he wouldn't BE the pope. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually the Pope can change Catholic beliefs to <b>anything</b> he wants too.
"What ever is law on Earth shall be law in heaven"
Or something like that...
Technically the Pope can say that only homosexuals will go to heaven, and it should be so...but I'm sure they would come up with some crazy excuse to get around that...so maybe the Pope can't.
It's all fictional anyway so it’s hard to worry too much. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Catholic theology, fictional? It's interesting to hear this coming from reasa, especially considering that the exact same reasoning applies to the rest of Christianity.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Apr 2 2005, 10:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Apr 2 2005, 10:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Apr 2 2005, 10:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Apr 2 2005, 10:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Just because this pope wasn't THAT bad, dosen't mean his hands are clean, I mean, how can someone like the pope but not the church, thats idiocy, because weather he admits it or not he MUST agree with their beliefs otherwise he wouldn't BE the pope. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually the Pope can change Catholic beliefs to <b>anything</b> he wants too.
"What ever is law on Earth shall be law in heaven"
Or something like that...
Technically the Pope can say that only homosexuals will go to heaven, and it should be so...but I'm sure they would come up with some crazy excuse to get around that...so maybe the Pope can't.
It's all fictional anyway so it’s hard to worry too much. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Right, well, he at least had to pretend to agree before instating his own dogma :|
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 2 2005, 10:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 2 2005, 10:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Catholic theology, fictional? It's interesting to hear this coming from reasa, especially considering that the exact same reasoning applies to the rest of Christianity. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Huh why interesting?
I thought I had made my stance on religion fairly clear.
I suppose if you had to group me I would be agnostic.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Apr 2 2005, 11:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Apr 2 2005, 11:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 2 2005, 10:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 2 2005, 10:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Catholic theology, fictional? It's interesting to hear this coming from reasa, especially considering that the exact same reasoning applies to the rest of Christianity. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Huh why interesting?
I thought I had made my stance on religion fairly clear.
I suppose if you had to group me I would be agnostic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Really? I could have sworn that you were a Protestant. Oh well.
[QUOTE=reasa,Apr 2 2005, 10:11 PM] [QUOTE=CommunistWithAGun,Apr 2 2005, 10:05 PM] Just because this pope wasn't THAT bad, dosen't mean his hands are clean, I mean, how can someone like the pope but not the church, thats idiocy, because weather he admits it or not he MUST agree with their beliefs otherwise he wouldn't BE the pope. [/QUOTE] Actually the Pope can change Catholic beliefs to <b>anything</b> he wants too.
"What ever is law on Earth shall be law in heaven"
Or something like that...
Technically the Pope can say that only homosexuals will go to heaven, and it should be so...but I'm sure they would come up with some crazy excuse to get around that...so maybe the Pope can't.
It's all fictional anyway so it’s hard to worry too much. [/QUOTE] before horrible theology afflicts us all, read this and learn about the RCC:
Another interesting Catholic doctrine is the idea of papal infallibility. The main support also comes from that verse Rob quoted - but the doctrine behind it is not supported biblically at all.
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. QUOTE 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.”[/QUOTE]
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 member - one who is not repentant - and remove them from the church, the penalty being damnation.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Apr 4 2005, 08:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Apr 4 2005, 08:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [QUOTE=reasa,Apr 2 2005, 10:11 PM] [QUOTE=CommunistWithAGun,Apr 2 2005, 10:05 PM] Just because this pope wasn't THAT bad, dosen't mean his hands are clean, I mean, how can someone like the pope but not the church, thats idiocy, because weather he admits it or not he MUST agree with their beliefs otherwise he wouldn't BE the pope. [/QUOTE] Actually the Pope can change Catholic beliefs to <b>anything</b> he wants too.
"What ever is law on Earth shall be law in heaven"
Or something like that...
Technically the Pope can say that only homosexuals will go to heaven, and it should be so...but I'm sure they would come up with some crazy excuse to get around that...so maybe the Pope can't.
It's all fictional anyway so it’s hard to worry too much. [/QUOTE] before horrible theology afflicts us all, read this and learn about the RCC:
Another interesting Catholic doctrine is the idea of papal infallibility. The main support also comes from that verse Rob quoted - but the doctrine behind it is not supported biblically at all.
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. QUOTE 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.”[/QUOTE]
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 member - one who is not repentant - and remove them from the church, the penalty being damnation.
Thats all I got for now. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No offense but I stopped reading after
<!--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-->Another interesting Catholic doctrine is the idea of papal infallibility. The main support also comes from that verse Rob quoted - but the doctrine behind it is not supported biblically at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
why did you stop reading? Did it offend you? (im not trying to be an **** - I guess I was wondering what made you stop reading - cause usually the cause is offensive material, which I wasn't trying to do... )
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Apr 4 2005, 10:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Apr 4 2005, 10:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> why did you stop reading? Did it offend you? (im not trying to be an **** - I guess I was wondering what made you stop reading - cause usually the cause is offensive material, which I wasn't trying to do... ) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> He stopped reading because that is a fallacy. You tell us that in the verse Rob quoted papal infallibility is supported then you tell us that it isn't biblically supported. Which is it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+Apr 4 2005, 10:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ Apr 4 2005, 10:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Apr 4 2005, 10:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Apr 4 2005, 10:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> why did you stop reading? Did it offend you? (im not trying to be an **** - I guess I was wondering what made you stop reading - cause usually the cause is offensive material, which I wasn't trying to do... ) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He stopped reading because that is a fallacy. You tell us that in the verse Rob quoted papal infallibility is supported then you tell us that it isn't biblically supported. Which is it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah thats right, also even assuming all of christianity is true, NOBODY is equal to god himself. (I don't believe in any of it but thats what I would say if it were true and I did believe)
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Apr 4 2005, 11:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Apr 4 2005, 11:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+Apr 4 2005, 10:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ Apr 4 2005, 10:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Apr 4 2005, 10:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Apr 4 2005, 10:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> why did you stop reading? Did it offend you? (im not trying to be an **** - I guess I was wondering what made you stop reading - cause usually the cause is offensive material, which I wasn't trying to do... ) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He stopped reading because that is a fallacy. You tell us that in the verse Rob quoted papal infallibility is supported then you tell us that it isn't biblically supported. Which is it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah thats right, also even assuming all of christianity is true, NOBODY is equal to god himself. (I don't believe in any of it but thats what I would say if it were true and I did believe) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't believe it is current Catholic doctrine to say that the pope is equal to God. It is assumed that he is our interpreter of the divine, in that he gives us our mission and tries to help us achieve a greater connection to the sacred.
I don't know how many of you watched the specials on the news networks the day the pope died, but there were some very interesting facts aired. Particularly, there was a quote where a reporter asked the pope what he thought of Catholics in America who support abortion and women in the clergy, to which he replied, "I am like a father. I guide my children, but if they disobey me, I still love them." The Church may preach all kinds of things that you disagree with, but the pope didn't hate you if you disagreed with him. Not such a bad guy, imo.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+Apr 4 2005, 10:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ Apr 4 2005, 10:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Apr 4 2005, 10:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Apr 4 2005, 10:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> why did you stop reading? Did it offend you? (im not trying to be an **** - I guess I was wondering what made you stop reading - cause usually the cause is offensive material, which I wasn't trying to do... ) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He stopped reading because that is a fallacy. You tell us that in the verse Rob quoted papal infallibility is supported then you tell us that it isn't biblically supported. Which is it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, maybe I should have worded myself better. The verse exists (as I pointed out later) - and it has a meaning (which I also pointed out). However, that verse is used as the main support verse by the RCC supporting the infallability of the pope and the binding nature of his (the popes) decrees.
What I am saying is that the RCC pulled that verse out of context to give it a meaning it never had, to give the pope a power he shouldn't have.
So the long and short of it - I think the RCC made a huge doctrinal mistake (one that helped cause the reformation).
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Apr 4 2005, 01:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Apr 4 2005, 01:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+Apr 4 2005, 10:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ Apr 4 2005, 10:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Apr 4 2005, 10:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Apr 4 2005, 10:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> why did you stop reading? Did it offend you? (im not trying to be an **** - I guess I was wondering what made you stop reading - cause usually the cause is offensive material, which I wasn't trying to do... ) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He stopped reading because that is a fallacy. You tell us that in the verse Rob quoted papal infallibility is supported then you tell us that it isn't biblically supported. Which is it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, maybe I should have worded myself better. The verse exists (as I pointed out later) - and it has a meaning (which I also pointed out). However, that verse is used as the main support verse by the RCC supporting the infallability of the pope and the binding nature of his (the popes) decrees.
What I am saying is that the RCC pulled that verse out of context to give it a meaning it never had, to give the pope a power he shouldn't have.
So the long and short of it - I think the RCC made a huge doctrinal mistake (one that helped cause the reformation). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well that makes way more sense. Thanks. (Not being sarcastic.)
Comments
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-->
I'm not saying he never did anything "good"....
But frankly I'll save my tears for <a href='http://www.tibet.com/DL/nobelaccept.html' target='_blank'>H. H. the Dalai Lama</a>
Now that is someone who truly accomplishes the points you mention.
EDIT: Didn't mean to quote.. DELETED.
~ DarkATi
Erm, did u even read my above post???
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-->
<!--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-->(CWAG)A zealot like you is telling me to think, thats golden. I think I will sig that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ROFL??
A Zealot is a fanatically committed person.
Im not very even religious, i go to church like 1nce a year... ROFL How does stating that he never said harm homosexuals make me a zealot? and again i say ROFL! Just coz he helped topple Communism, no need to get touchy <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[EDIT] What i am trying to point out is the man never wanted his followers to hate homosexuals. He preached peace, but he beleived in his own views that the homosexual act was unnatural and wrong, he never said we must seek to harm any homosexual.I just cant understand why you find him so bad that you basicaly said good riddence at his death...have some respect and at least weigh out his pros and cons. No sane human being deserves a "Glad he's dead"...
Erm, did u even read my above post???
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-->
<!--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-->(CWAG)A zealot like you is telling me to think, thats golden. I think I will sig that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ROFL??
A Zealot is a fanatically committed person.
Im not very even religious, i go to church like 1nce a year... ROFL How does stating that he never said harm homosexuals make me a zealot? and again i say ROFL! Just coz he helped topple Communism, no need to get touchy <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[EDIT] What i am trying to point out is the man never wanted his followers to hate homosexuals. He preached peace, but he beleived in his own views that the homosexual act was unnatural and wrong, he never said we must seek to harm any homosexual.I just cant understand why you find him so bad that you basicaly said good riddence at his death...have some respect and at least weigh out his pros and cons. No sane human being deserves a "Glad he's dead"... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, he preaches catholocism, and I know that catholics abhore homosexuals/blacks/etc. My town is mostly catholic and it is a hotbed of racism and ignorance. Maybe I am biased because I live in a crappy town. Also, I gotta admit, you argue against yourself about being a zealot considering your fighting tooth and nail over a really old (now dead) bigot. Nuff said.
Yes its probably coz you live in a crappy town where the heck do you live anyway. I only argued mainly coz i am just shocked at tthe lack of humanity in some of you, even if you dont beleive in God heaven etc, cut the guy some slack, he was a good human being, had a few flaws tried his best more so than others, caused a bit of friction with his views yer....
I dono, maybe im just easily shocked, maybe im more affected by his death as my grandad died a few months back... but i dont think he deserved that good riddence...
Erm, did u even read my above post???
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-->
<!--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-->(CWAG)A zealot like you is telling me to think, thats golden. I think I will sig that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ROFL??
A Zealot is a fanatically committed person.
Im not very even religious, i go to church like 1nce a year... ROFL How does stating that he never said harm homosexuals make me a zealot? and again i say ROFL! Just coz he helped topple Communism, no need to get touchy <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[EDIT] What i am trying to point out is the man never wanted his followers to hate homosexuals. He preached peace, but he beleived in his own views that the homosexual act was unnatural and wrong, he never said we must seek to harm any homosexual.I just cant understand why you find him so bad that you basicaly said good riddence at his death...have some respect and at least weigh out his pros and cons. No sane human being deserves a "Glad he's dead"... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, he preaches catholocism, and I know that catholics abhore homosexuals/blacks/etc. My town is mostly catholic and it is a hotbed of racism and ignorance. Maybe I am biased because I live in a crappy town. Also, I gotta admit, you argue against yourself about being a zealot considering your fighting tooth and nail over a really old (now dead) bigot. Nuff said. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The church preaches that *** are wrong, <b>but</b> we should forgive them. Key word is <b>forgive</b> not punish. I personally don't give *** a second thought.
I am reading through this thread and I hear people complaining that the church should be more acceptant towards ***. At the same time I hearing "glad there are dead" and "they are all bigots" coming from those same people. Since homosexualism seem to be a hot topic, i will use it. If I were to call all homosexuals limp wristed panseys, I would be wrong. Why? Because I am catagorizing. You are doing the same thing. The catholic church does not preach violence, they preach forgiveness. Just as a few feminie *** do not define the **** community, the few bigots do not define the church.
all the asterix = "men who prefer men, and women who prefer women" stoopid censors need to be changed for this particular part of the forums.
Erm, did u even read my above post???
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-->
<!--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-->(CWAG)A zealot like you is telling me to think, thats golden. I think I will sig that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ROFL??
A Zealot is a fanatically committed person.
Im not very even religious, i go to church like 1nce a year... ROFL How does stating that he never said harm homosexuals make me a zealot? and again i say ROFL! Just coz he helped topple Communism, no need to get touchy <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[EDIT] What i am trying to point out is the man never wanted his followers to hate homosexuals. He preached peace, but he beleived in his own views that the homosexual act was unnatural and wrong, he never said we must seek to harm any homosexual.I just cant understand why you find him so bad that you basicaly said good riddence at his death...have some respect and at least weigh out his pros and cons. No sane human being deserves a "Glad he's dead"... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, he preaches catholocism, and I know that catholics abhore homosexuals/blacks/etc. My town is mostly catholic and it is a hotbed of racism and ignorance. Maybe I am biased because I live in a crappy town. Also, I gotta admit, you argue against yourself about being a zealot considering your fighting tooth and nail over a really old (now dead) bigot. Nuff said. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The church preaches that *** are wrong, <b>but</b> we should forgive them. Key word is <b>forgive</b> not punish. I personally don't give *** a second thought.
I am reading through this thread and I hear people complaining that the church should be more acceptant towards ***. At the same time I hearing "glad there are dead" and "they are all bigots" coming from those same people. Since homosexualism seem to be a hot topic, i will use it. If I were to call all homosexuals limp wristed panseys, I would be wrong. Why? Because I am catagorizing. You are doing the same thing. The catholic church does not preach violence, they preach forgiveness. Just as a few feminie *** do not define the **** community, the few bigots do not define the church.
all the asterix = "men who prefer men, and women who prefer women" stoopid censors need to be changed for this particular part of the forums. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
so thats why the church waited to see who would win World war 2. Interesting, but no.
Erm, did u even read my above post???
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-->
<!--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-->(CWAG)A zealot like you is telling me to think, thats golden. I think I will sig that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ROFL??
A Zealot is a fanatically committed person.
Im not very even religious, i go to church like 1nce a year... ROFL How does stating that he never said harm homosexuals make me a zealot? and again i say ROFL! Just coz he helped topple Communism, no need to get touchy <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[EDIT] What i am trying to point out is the man never wanted his followers to hate homosexuals. He preached peace, but he beleived in his own views that the homosexual act was unnatural and wrong, he never said we must seek to harm any homosexual.I just cant understand why you find him so bad that you basicaly said good riddence at his death...have some respect and at least weigh out his pros and cons. No sane human being deserves a "Glad he's dead"... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, he preaches catholocism, and I know that catholics abhore homosexuals/blacks/etc. My town is mostly catholic and it is a hotbed of racism and ignorance. Maybe I am biased because I live in a crappy town. Also, I gotta admit, you argue against yourself about being a zealot considering your fighting tooth and nail over a really old (now dead) bigot. Nuff said. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The church preaches that *** are wrong, <b>but</b> we should forgive them. Key word is <b>forgive</b> not punish. I personally don't give *** a second thought.
I am reading through this thread and I hear people complaining that the church should be more acceptant towards ***. At the same time I hearing "glad there are dead" and "they are all bigots" coming from those same people. Since homosexualism seem to be a hot topic, i will use it. If I were to call all homosexuals limp wristed panseys, I would be wrong. Why? Because I am catagorizing. You are doing the same thing. The catholic church does not preach violence, they preach forgiveness. Just as a few feminie *** do not define the **** community, the few bigots do not define the church.
all the asterix = "men who prefer men, and women who prefer women" stoopid censors need to be changed for this particular part of the forums. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so thats why the church waited to see who would win World war 2. Interesting, but no. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So with that I am suppose to hold the current German population responsible still for the holocaust? According to your logic I am.
Of course so is everyone else in this forum.
Erm, did u even read my above post???
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-->
<!--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-->(CWAG)A zealot like you is telling me to think, thats golden. I think I will sig that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ROFL??
A Zealot is a fanatically committed person.
Im not very even religious, i go to church like 1nce a year... ROFL How does stating that he never said harm homosexuals make me a zealot? and again i say ROFL! Just coz he helped topple Communism, no need to get touchy <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[EDIT] What i am trying to point out is the man never wanted his followers to hate homosexuals. He preached peace, but he beleived in his own views that the homosexual act was unnatural and wrong, he never said we must seek to harm any homosexual.I just cant understand why you find him so bad that you basicaly said good riddence at his death...have some respect and at least weigh out his pros and cons. No sane human being deserves a "Glad he's dead"... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, he preaches catholocism, and I know that catholics abhore homosexuals/blacks/etc. My town is mostly catholic and it is a hotbed of racism and ignorance. Maybe I am biased because I live in a crappy town. Also, I gotta admit, you argue against yourself about being a zealot considering your fighting tooth and nail over a really old (now dead) bigot. Nuff said. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The church preaches that *** are wrong, <b>but</b> we should forgive them. Key word is <b>forgive</b> not punish. I personally don't give *** a second thought.
I am reading through this thread and I hear people complaining that the church should be more acceptant towards ***. At the same time I hearing "glad there are dead" and "they are all bigots" coming from those same people. Since homosexualism seem to be a hot topic, i will use it. If I were to call all homosexuals limp wristed panseys, I would be wrong. Why? Because I am catagorizing. You are doing the same thing. The catholic church does not preach violence, they preach forgiveness. Just as a few feminie *** do not define the **** community, the few bigots do not define the church.
all the asterix = "men who prefer men, and women who prefer women" stoopid censors need to be changed for this particular part of the forums. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so thats why the church waited to see who would win World war 2. Interesting, but no. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So with that I am suppose to hold the current German population responsible still for the holocaust? According to your logic I am. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just because this pope wasn't THAT bad, dosen't mean his hands are clean, I mean, how can someone like the pope but not the church, thats idiocy, because weather he admits it or not he MUST agree with their beliefs otherwise he wouldn't BE the pope.
Actually the Pope can change Catholic beliefs to <b>anything</b> he wants too.
"What ever is law on Earth shall be law in heaven"
Or something like that...
Technically the Pope can say that only homosexuals will go to heaven, and it should be so...but I'm sure they would come up with some crazy excuse to get around that...so maybe the Pope can't.
It's all fictional anyway so it’s hard to worry too much.
My evaluation:
Good Pope:
-He oversaw vast reforms of the Church that would have been unthinkable under previous popes, but turned the church into one of the more progressive and positive religions around
-More than any other single figure, this is the man who toppled Communism and pulled the rug out from any hope for the legitimacy of totalitarian regimes. While no single figure can claim a large portion of this vicotry, he has a larger share than most. Surprised by how quickly all of the Soviet Bloc fell? Then you probably weren't paying enough attention to this Pope
-Showed Christlike devotion in meeting with and forgiving his attempted assasin.
-Helped showed Christians that evolution wasn't an enemy of Christianity, but compatible and even helpful to Christian theology
-Was basically a liberal on everything but social issues
Bad Pope
-Really did nothing to take a stand against child abuse and molestation by Preists. Was probably at least partially complicit in the cover-ups. Likewise, gave little criticism to the excesses and coddling of rich Catholic criminals who gave stolen money to the Chruch
-His views on sexuality and life, I personally find morally abhorrent
-Kept in place the demands on contraception and STD teachings that probably expanded suffering greatly in the Third World and elsewhere
-Most recently and bizarrely declared that people must be kept alive purely for the sake of keeping them alive.
I doubt the next pope will be anywhere near as impressive.
This pope, love or hate what he did, was probably the MOST important figure of the latter half of the 20th century.l
Actually the Pope can change Catholic beliefs to <b>anything</b> he wants too.
"What ever is law on Earth shall be law in heaven"
Or something like that...
Technically the Pope can say that only homosexuals will go to heaven, and it should be so...but I'm sure they would come up with some crazy excuse to get around that...so maybe the Pope can't.
It's all fictional anyway so it’s hard to worry too much. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Catholic theology, fictional? It's interesting to hear this coming from reasa, especially considering that the exact same reasoning applies to the rest of Christianity.
Actually the Pope can change Catholic beliefs to <b>anything</b> he wants too.
"What ever is law on Earth shall be law in heaven"
Or something like that...
Technically the Pope can say that only homosexuals will go to heaven, and it should be so...but I'm sure they would come up with some crazy excuse to get around that...so maybe the Pope can't.
It's all fictional anyway so it’s hard to worry too much. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, well, he at least had to pretend to agree before instating his own dogma :|
Huh why interesting?
I thought I had made my stance on religion fairly clear.
I suppose if you had to group me I would be agnostic.
Huh why interesting?
I thought I had made my stance on religion fairly clear.
I suppose if you had to group me I would be agnostic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really? I could have sworn that you were a Protestant. Oh well.
Actually the Pope can change Catholic beliefs to <b>anything</b> he wants too.
"What ever is law on Earth shall be law in heaven"
Or something like that...
Technically the Pope can say that only homosexuals will go to heaven, and it should be so...but I'm sure they would come up with some crazy excuse to get around that...so maybe the Pope can't.
It's all fictional anyway so it’s hard to worry too much. [/QUOTE]
before horrible theology afflicts us all, read this and learn about the RCC:
Another interesting Catholic doctrine is the idea of papal infallibility. The main support also comes from that verse Rob quoted - but the doctrine behind it is not supported biblically at all.
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.
QUOTE
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.”[/QUOTE]
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 member - one who is not repentant - and remove them from the church, the penalty being damnation.
Thats all I got for now.
Actually the Pope can change Catholic beliefs to <b>anything</b> he wants too.
"What ever is law on Earth shall be law in heaven"
Or something like that...
Technically the Pope can say that only homosexuals will go to heaven, and it should be so...but I'm sure they would come up with some crazy excuse to get around that...so maybe the Pope can't.
It's all fictional anyway so it’s hard to worry too much. [/QUOTE]
before horrible theology afflicts us all, read this and learn about the RCC:
Another interesting Catholic doctrine is the idea of papal infallibility. The main support also comes from that verse Rob quoted - but the doctrine behind it is not supported biblically at all.
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.
QUOTE
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.”[/QUOTE]
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 member - one who is not repentant - and remove them from the church, the penalty being damnation.
Thats all I got for now. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No offense but I stopped reading after
<!--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-->Another interesting Catholic doctrine is the idea of papal infallibility. The main support also comes from that verse Rob quoted - but the doctrine behind it is not supported biblically at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He stopped reading because that is a fallacy. You tell us that in the verse Rob quoted papal infallibility is supported then you tell us that it isn't biblically supported. Which is it.
He stopped reading because that is a fallacy. You tell us that in the verse Rob quoted papal infallibility is supported then you tell us that it isn't biblically supported. Which is it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah thats right, also even assuming all of christianity is true, NOBODY is equal to god himself. (I don't believe in any of it but thats what I would say if it were true and I did believe)
He stopped reading because that is a fallacy. You tell us that in the verse Rob quoted papal infallibility is supported then you tell us that it isn't biblically supported. Which is it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah thats right, also even assuming all of christianity is true, NOBODY is equal to god himself. (I don't believe in any of it but thats what I would say if it were true and I did believe) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't believe it is current Catholic doctrine to say that the pope is equal to God. It is assumed that he is our interpreter of the divine, in that he gives us our mission and tries to help us achieve a greater connection to the sacred.
He stopped reading because that is a fallacy. You tell us that in the verse Rob quoted papal infallibility is supported then you tell us that it isn't biblically supported. Which is it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, maybe I should have worded myself better. The verse exists (as I pointed out later) - and it has a meaning (which I also pointed out). However, that verse is used as the main support verse by the RCC supporting the infallability of the pope and the binding nature of his (the popes) decrees.
What I am saying is that the RCC pulled that verse out of context to give it a meaning it never had, to give the pope a power he shouldn't have.
So the long and short of it - I think the RCC made a huge doctrinal mistake (one that helped cause the reformation).
He stopped reading because that is a fallacy. You tell us that in the verse Rob quoted papal infallibility is supported then you tell us that it isn't biblically supported. Which is it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, maybe I should have worded myself better. The verse exists (as I pointed out later) - and it has a meaning (which I also pointed out). However, that verse is used as the main support verse by the RCC supporting the infallability of the pope and the binding nature of his (the popes) decrees.
What I am saying is that the RCC pulled that verse out of context to give it a meaning it never had, to give the pope a power he shouldn't have.
So the long and short of it - I think the RCC made a huge doctrinal mistake (one that helped cause the reformation). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well that makes way more sense. Thanks. (Not being sarcastic.)