Holy Father Pope Francis in the Hizzy

[ICantSpellDawg]

Pope Francis - A Jesuit who is humble, loves the poor, and looking to re-build the church as Jesus would have with a renewed focus on Christian charity. I'm looking forward to his papacy.


He speaks three languages, masters degree in Chemistry, professor of Theology, Psychology, and Literature. Eschews excess in his daily life, lives in an apartment, takes the bus, cooks his own meals.

Here is a devout article (http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=50114)

Here is a skeptically devout article (http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=24168)

Cardinal Dolan (http://www.archny.org/news-events/news-press-releases/index.cfm?i=28633)

Andrew Sullivan's Blog (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/03/13/live-blogging-pope-francis/)

For a few different perspectives. For one thing, Catholics around the world can be brought together by this selection. That's a good first sign.

[Kadagar_AV]

Can he perform miracles?

[Fragony]

Yeah, a pedopriest miraculously got a position elsewhere

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As I said in the other thread - he has no French and only some English. That is concerning, as his apparent lack of Greek or Hebrew - the last I find most disturbing in a Jesuit. This rather leads me to the conclusion that he is in no way the intellectual Titan his predecessors were, how he handles pastoral matters is of course a different issue.

[gaelic cowboy]

As I said in the other thread - he has no French and only some English. That is concerning, as his apparent lack of Greek or Hebrew - the last I find most disturbing in a Jesuit. This rather leads me to the conclusion that he is in no way the intellectual Titan his predecessors were, how he handles pastoral matters is of course a different issue.

The last thing the cardinal electors wanted is another academic like Benedict xvi or a long lived rockstar like John Paul ii

they want an administrator and they dont want him around for 30year

according to the guardian the vatican press office says he speak spanish, french, english, italian, german and some portugese

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Can he perform miracles?

Probably not, or San Lorenzo (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4841340/Pope-Francis-I-Jorge-Mario-Bergoglio-supports-San-Lorenzo-pictures.html) would have an even more successful record.

[HoreTore]

Btw:

According to our constitution, the new pope is banned from entry to Norway. Eat that!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They predicted his election and excluded him by name in advance? That's amazing!

[HoreTore]

They predicted his election and excluded him by name in advance? That's amazing!

Nah, they were just acting like the bigoted racists they were.

He's a jesuit, our constitution bans all of them from entry to the realm. Along with the joooz and monks. Europe is great, huh?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You still have that kind of vestigial crap un-nullified?! And here I had always thought of you folks as posterchildren for enlightened social democracies akin to those wacky Swedes.

[HoreTore]

You still have that kind of vestigial crap un-nullified?! And here I had always thought of you folks as posterchildren for enlightened social democracies akin to those wacky Swedes.

It's gone now, but not until we had to ratify the European declaration of human rights in the 50's. And the vote to allow them in wasn't unanimous.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The last thing the cardinal electors wanted is another academic like Benedict xvi or a long lived rockstar like John Paul ii

they want an administrator and they dont want him around for 30year

according to the guardian the vatican press office says he speak spanish, french, english, italian, german and some portugese

That's the list for Benedict, Francis apparently has no French, and only some English.

Putting the new Pope in context, he looks like a deliberate choice in terms of the direction the Papacy has been going. We had: Anti Communist Pope; then: Authoritarian caretaker-cleaning-doctrinally robust Pope; now we have: Popular Pastoral Missionary Pope.

It will be interesting to see how this Jesuit deals with ecumenical matters.

[Kralizec]

It's gone now, but not until we had to ratify the European declaration of human rights in the 50's. And the vote to allow them in wasn't unanimous.

:no:

Those europhiles and their contempt for national sovereignty and cultural values.

[Whacker]

I think we're going to see strings of short-term, much older (mid 70's and up) popes for the next few decades. That way if one proves to be disliked or a flop, the hope would be that the individual will kick the bucket sooner than later (or resign?) and a newer, more "hip" and "in tune" person could be elected. The Catholic Church has a lot of major decisions to make soon about repositioning itself, and if it's even willing to do so.

[Husar]

The religion is based on a book that has neither changed nor repositioned itself in more than a thousand years. So why do people keep demanding that people who believe in that book reposition themselves? Might as well demand that porn should have no sexual acts anymore.

[Ironside]

It's gone now, but not until we had to ratify the European declaration of human rights in the 50's. And the vote to allow them in wasn't unanimous.

You haven't done any big reforms in it since 1814, only a few modifications? Man it's old.

[HoreTore]

You haven't done any big reforms in it since 1814, only a few modifications? Man it's old.

It's been continually modified from the very beginning, and the current one bears little resemblance to the original. Thankfully.

[Vladimir]

There are still silly and outdated laws on the books of every country and U.S. state. The Jesuits were kicked out of China for meddling. Being the covert action arm of an international religious organization is bound to ruffle a few feathers.

They have a very interesting history though.

[Lemur]

Man, fifty prostitutes and an all-night orgy with prizes for the cardinals who ejaculate the most? The Vatican used to know how to party. Color me impressed (http://surviving-history.blogspot.com/2013/03/banquet-of-chestnuts-papal-orgy-of-1501.html). Things have gotten mighty tame since the 1500s.

According to Burchard, the evening rapidly descended into a sexually-charged floor show.

‘After dinner the candelabra with the burning candles were taken from the tables and placed on the floor, and chestnuts were strewn around, which the naked courtesans picked up, creeping on hands and knees between the chandeliers, while the Pope, Cesare, and his sister Lucretia looked on.’

It was not long before the soiree turned into an orgy. ‘Prizes were announced for those who could perform the act most often with the courtesans, such as tunics of silk, shoes… and other things.’

It is reported that the pope himself distributed prizes for the cardinals and priests who had ejaculated the most times.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Borgia popes....not likely to stand as the Church's "finest hour."

[Major Robert Dump]

I got really excited and was about to suddenly find religion until I saw that it took place in the 1500s.

[Lemur]

The Borgia popes....not likely to stand as the Church's "finest hour."
Can't find the exact quote, since I read it in a dead tree book, but I am always impressed by the reasoning of a Borgia-era philosopher.

He declared that the debauchery in the Vatican was proof that the Papacy descended from God, since any human institution would have crumbled under the weight of so much corruption.

Airtight! Logic!

[Ronin]

Man, fifty prostitutes and an all-night orgy with prizes for the cardinals who ejaculate the most? The Vatican used to know how to party. Color me impressed (http://surviving-history.blogspot.com/2013/03/banquet-of-chestnuts-papal-orgy-of-1501.html). Things have gotten mighty tame since the 1500s.

According to Burchard, the evening rapidly descended into a sexually-charged floor show.

‘After dinner the candelabra with the burning candles were taken from the tables and placed on the floor, and chestnuts were strewn around, which the naked courtesans picked up, creeping on hands and knees between the chandeliers, while the Pope, Cesare, and his sister Lucretia looked on.’

It was not long before the soiree turned into an orgy. ‘Prizes were announced for those who could perform the act most often with the courtesans, such as tunics of silk, shoes… and other things.’

It is reported that the pope himself distributed prizes for the cardinals and priests who had ejaculated the most times.

I know, there used to be a time when you could respect the church.....that's gangsta!

[gaelic cowboy]

Wasnt all that banquet of chestnuts stuff supposedly just rumours put about by there enemies???

[Lemur]

Wasnt all that banquet of chestnuts stuff supposedly just rumours put about by there enemies???
Not exactly. A Vatican researcher named Monsignor Peter de Roo attempted to discredit the story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banquet_of_Chestnuts), with mixed success. Note that de Roo was writing in the 1800s, while the source of the story, Johann Burchard, recorded the event in in the Liber Notarum in the 1500s (and none of the other Papal events he describes are contested). So there's a bit of a remove there, not to mention ye olde primary vs. secondary source conflict.

Moreover, there are contemporary letters that confirm aspects of the event, such as the invitation of fifty prostitutes.

Draw your own conclusions. I prefer to believe that the Borgia popes were stone cold gangsta.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Borgia popes....not likely to stand as the Church's "finest hour."

Leaving aside the sexual failings, the Borgia Popes were really quite successful and effective.

Rodrigo di Borgia was actually a staunch traditionalist who defended the Church against encroaching Protestants, and held the Papal States together.

It's not like the Borgias were into abusing children, or the general rape and pillage.

[Whacker]

The religion is based on a book that has neither changed nor repositioned itself in more than a thousand years. So why do people keep demanding that people who believe in that book reposition themselves? Might as well demand that porn should have no sexual acts anymore.

The demands appear to be coming from both within and without, which makes it all the more interesting to watch. It's exceedingly rare that complex ideologies last and stay relevant throughout the ages without at least some level of adjusting to the times and cultures they exist within, since society is not remotely a static thing. The old saying goes "Adapt or die", and it's more or less always true. Religion is no exception. If the church sticks to it's guns, it will apparently see more and more of it's "flock" leaving. Whatever happens it'll be fascinating to watch.

[Ibrahim]

I'm frankly less interested in who he is privately, then what he'll do as pope to address the following:

1-the whole screw-up with condoms and birth control--especially in Africa.
2-the actions of priests with the altar boys (and girls)
3-the mere fact that the Sith lord was the previous pope :clown:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

1-the whole screw-up with condoms and birth control--especially in Africa.

Would someone please explain to me why the perverse sexual practices of African men are the result of the Church teaching on abstinence? The previous Pope has already said that it's better to wear a condom than infect someone, I fail to see why the Church should do more given that the underlying problem is a particular perverse sexual act, not dogmatic adherence to doctrine.

After all, if all these poor bloody Africans who are supposedly so in thrall to the Church really rejected condoms because of Roman teaching, they wouldn't be sleeping with so many prostitutes, either, would they?

[Major Robert Dump]

I find it amusing that his seemingly good qualities are now overshadowed in some lefty news circles by the fact that he is "anti-gay."

He is a religious leader. I would expect no less of him. And in related news, the winner of the OKC TransGender Pageant does not go to church.

[Husar]

The demands appear to be coming from both within and without, which makes it all the more interesting to watch. It's exceedingly rare that complex ideologies last and stay relevant throughout the ages without at least some level of adjusting to the times and cultures they exist within, since society is not remotely a static thing. The old saying goes "Adapt or die", and it's more or less always true. Religion is no exception. If the church sticks to it's guns, it will apparently see more and more of it's "flock" leaving. Whatever happens it'll be fascinating to watch.

Yes, I'm aware of that. The point is that the people who are believers and follow the church and demand change have to believe that god changed his mind about whether being gay is wrong. Either that or they don't care about god and church is just their type of carnival club in which case they might as well drop the whole religion thing and make it all more fun.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I find it amusing that his seemingly good qualities are now overshadowed in some lefty news circles by the fact that he is "anti-gay."

He is a religious leader. I would expect no less of him. And in related news, the winner of the OKC TransGender Pageant does not go to church.

Well, meh. Really, who cares, the majority of the world's population are highly homophobic. Only piddly little Europe and the Anglo-sphere is really tolerant to any degree.

So, really, the idea that the Church needs to change is a little facile - the Church is in tune with most of humanity.


Yes, I'm aware of that. The point is that the people who are believers and follow the church and demand change have to believe that god changed his mind about whether being gay is wrong. Either that or they don't care about god and church is just their type of carnival club in which case they might as well drop the whole religion thing and make it all more fun.

Nah, it just means they thought their predecessors were wrong, not that God changed his mind. That's like the person who said the Pope lost his faith when he resigned.

[Whacker]

Yes, I'm aware of that. The point is that the people who are believers and follow the church and demand change have to believe that god changed his mind about whether being gay is wrong. Either that or they don't care about god and church is just their type of carnival club in which case they might as well drop the whole religion thing and make it all more fun.

Well, given that the bible contradicts itself in many ways in many instances, some statements could be interpreted to overrule other statements, and that it's well known that certain writings were excluded when the original bible was compiled ages ago... who is to say these "new" voices are wrong? It does seem like a ridiculous circus though, and on a personal level doesn't do anything to change my long standing abysmal opinion of religion in general.

[Husar]

Nah, it just means they thought their predecessors were wrong, not that God changed his mind. That's like the person who said the Pope lost his faith when he resigned.
Well, the pope really lost his faith when he let a bunch of humans choose him over human political issues and then claim he was chosen by god to represent god. Or maybe it was when he became incredibly wealthy and forgot about the camel and the needle but that's another issue. The issue at hand is that the pope represents god so if his predecessors had a completely different stance on gays for example and they were clearly wrong, then they didn't represent god or what am I missing again? I'm sure you can explain all this away but to me it will just look more like a circus where people shape the church as they want it and then tuck all this to god, it doesn't look at all like the church is guided by god, it looks like the church creates its own god the way it wants to have its god.


Well, given that the bible contradicts itself in many ways in many instances, some statements could be interpreted to overrule other statements, and that it's well known that certain writings were excluded when the original bible was compiled ages ago... who is to say these "new" voices are wrong?
The old book. Now if you don't believe that anything in the old book can be taken for granted or that god guided the people who chose what has to be in it, then why do you believe in god in the first place? It could be that all the passages that mention god are wrong. There's even an old book that portrays Jesus as some bloodthirsty devilish man IIRC, might as well believe that to be true. As I said above, either you believe that god has certain rules and has communicated them or you can just do what you want and then claim god wants it too because you found a paper somewhere that says he does. Or maybe you wrote down yourself what he wants, that would be convenient.


It does seem like a ridiculous circus though, and on a personal level doesn't do anything to change my long standing abysmal opinion of religion in general.
Yes, it's one of the reasons I got trouble believing it anymore and IMO the catholic church is much worse than the fundamental christians who are at least relatively consistent in their beliefs.

[Papewaio]

Well, meh. Really, who cares, the majority of the world's population are highly homophobic. Only piddly little Europe and the Anglo-sphere is really tolerant to any degree.

So, really, the idea that the Church needs to change is a little facile - the Church is in tune with most of humanity.


So you are saying the Church isn't in a leadership position and fighting the good fight it's just going with the polls.

Fits. Fits very well.

Exhibit One: China had no issues with homosexuality until Western countries took over large swathes of the country in the 1800's onwards.
Exhibit Two: Japan certainly didn't have issues with homosexuality. Until again contact with the West.

Most Buddhist countries that have had minimal colonial input have not gone down the anti homosexual path. One only needs to look at Thailand to see what most of these countries would be like now without Western ideas.

So not only is the EU not the only place that is tolerant, it isn't the most.

As for the Catholic Church. It is multiple secular governments in multiple countries that have been doing the vast amount of uncovering of the paedophilia behaviour of Catholic Priests. The only consistent thread from the Church has been cover ups. The idea that any religion should be above the law and beholden just to itself, not transparent and not accountable is not consistent with a modern society where everyone is equal within the law. IMDHO no religion should be above the law.

If the Church was a moral agency they would have fixed this and other issues without having the need of external groups making the changes. Instead they document and cover up the problems, move cretins around and harass the victims if they spoke out.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It is multiple secular governments in multiple countries that have been doing the vast amount of uncovering of the paedophilia behaviour of Catholic Priests. The only consistent thread from the Church has been cover ups.

Equally, look at the complete failure of a secular government to uncover decades of child abuse within a secular organisation that received its funding from said secular government. Saville, etc.

What the various child abuse scandals floating about now show is the sort of culture that institutions can breed. Religiosity isn't what they have in common.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So you are saying the Church isn't in a leadership position and fighting the good fight it's just going with the polls.

Fits. Fits very well.

Exhibit One: China had no issues with homosexuality until Western countries took over large swathes of the country in the 1800's onwards.
Exhibit Two: Japan certainly didn't have issues with homosexuality. Until again contact with the West.

Most Buddhist countries that have had minimal colonial input have not gone down the anti homosexual path. One only needs to look at Thailand to see what most of these countries would be like now without Western ideas.

So not only is the EU not the only place that is tolerant, it isn't the most.

As for the Catholic Church. It is multiple secular governments in multiple countries that have been doing the vast amount of uncovering of the paedophilia behaviour of Catholic Priests. The only consistent thread from the Church has been cover ups. The idea that any religion should be above the law and beholden just to itself, not transparent and not accountable is not consistent with a modern society where everyone is equal within the law. IMDHO no religion should be above the law.

If the Church was a moral agency they would have fixed this and other issues without having the need of external groups making the changes. Instead they document and cover up the problems, move cretins around and harass the victims if they spoke out.

The Church has generally preached tolerance, there have been some black spots, some really pitch black spots, but the Church no longer condones the persecution of homosexuals.

I see no reason why is follows that said Church should now endorse them?

Maybe the immorality is the endorsement of homosexuality, and the Church is the only moral organisation?

How can you tell? How can you be sure?

[Kadagar_AV]

Equally, look at the complete failure of a secular government to uncover decades of child abuse within a secular organisation that received its funding from said secular government. Saville, etc.

What the various child abuse scandals floating about now show is the sort of culture that institutions can breed. Religiosity isn't what they have in common.

This.

[Greyblades]

http://assets.amuniversal.com/919a0e606fd801301e85001dd8b71c47

[Fragony]

Equally, look at the complete failure of a secular government to uncover decades of child abuse within a secular organisation that received its funding from said secular government. Saville, etc.

What the various child abuse scandals floating about now show is the sort of culture that institutions can breed. Religiosity isn't what they have in common.

And how they get away with it shows we why should limit their power.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Leaving aside the sexual failings, the Borgia Popes were really quite successful and effective.

Rodrigo di Borgia was actually a staunch traditionalist who defended the Church against encroaching Protestants, and held the Papal States together.

It's not like the Borgias were into abusing children, or the general rape and pillage.

They had much success, but that success was far more in a secular character than in a spiritual one. They didn't exactly out-preach the protestants. I admit that this success was not without value for the church -- and a number of subsequent pontiffs thought Alexander in particular had done Mother Church good service -- but I have, at best, mixed feelings about the Borgias.

[Brenus]

Pope is not pro-life. He is against abortion whatever circumstances... was not pro-life for the opponents of Videla, dictator of Argentina either.

[HopAlongBunny]

The only RC I've chatted with since the Papal election put the choice like this:

We can't re-Brand but we can re-focus; time to pursue the market where we are strong and have the possibility to get stronger.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They had much success, but that success was far more in a secular character than in a spiritual one. They didn't exactly out-preach the protestants. I admit that this success was not without value for the church -- and a number of subsequent pontiffs thought Alexander in particular had done Mother Church good service -- but I have, at best, mixed feelings about the Borgias.

Well, there are mixed views about his pastoral work - all I'm saying is there have been much worse Popes - most of the Avingon ones, for starters.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, there are mixed views about his pastoral work - all I'm saying is there have been much worse Popes - most of the Avingon ones, for starters.

Concur.

[Sigurd]

The religion is based on a book that has neither changed nor repositioned itself in more than a thousand years
*COUGH*

[Lemur]

all I'm saying is there have been much worse Popes
A helpful starter list: The 6 Most Awful Popes (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/most-awful/popes-cadaver-synod.php)

[Husar]

*COUGH*

Are you referring to translations? Those are accurate because the holy spirit would make sure they are, no?
I'm talking from a believer's point of view. If we're going to say they're not, then we know nothing and in that case we don't really need a church because those guys don't know anything either. Or we'll have to trust on Jesus forgiving everything we do wrong but in that case we don't need priests forgiving our sins. And we certainly wouldn't need priests interpreting a flawed book. Besides, the evangelical pastors I know often back up their interpretations by analyzing the original greek or hebrew words as well. So in that way the church is still based on books that haven't changed in over a thousand years, unless you know that the documents are all 15th century forgeries.

[HoreTore]

A helpful starter list: The 6 Most Awful Popes (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/most-awful/popes-cadaver-synod.php)

Nothing more bizarre than what the standard European King has done.

They'd all fit in well with the Tudors or Stuarts, I'd say.... Not surprising, since they all came from the same breed.

[Greyblades]

Incest, paedophillia and beastiality...Compared to those guys the tudors and stuarts were bloody saints.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are you referring to translations? Those are accurate because the holy spirit would make sure they are, no?
I'm talking from a believer's point of view. If we're going to say they're not, then we know nothing and in that case we don't really need a church because those guys don't know anything either. Or we'll have to trust on Jesus forgiving everything we do wrong but in that case we don't need priests forgiving our sins. And we certainly wouldn't need priests interpreting a flawed book. Besides, the evangelical pastors I know often back up their interpretations by analyzing the original greek or hebrew words as well. So in that way the church is still based on books that haven't changed in over a thousand years, unless you know that the documents are all 15th century forgeries.

Until the Reformation there was no Bible - it was the advent of printing and the religious turmoil that forced the various factions to actually make authoritativeness statements, even then the choices made by the different groups were - well - different.

The Roman Catholic Bible is different to the Anglican, to the Lutheran, to the Greek orthodox, to the Slavic.


Nothing more bizarre than what the standard European King has done.

They'd all fit in well with the Tudors or Stuarts, I'd say.... Not surprising, since they all came from the same breed.

Find a Tudor or Stuart who did any of those things - the best you're likely to find is James I & VI, who liked men and women.

[Strike For The South]

A new tyrant in Rome

ho hum

[HoreTore]

Find a Tudor or Stuart who did any of those things - the best you're likely to find is James I & VI, who liked men and women.

A Tudor or Stuart who was a murderer?

How 'bout.... All of them?

[Greyblades]

A Tudor or Stuart who was a murderer?

How 'bout.... All of them?

Kinda not all that bad for the time, especially compared to open paedophiles, omniphillic sado-masochists and shits-and-giggles killers.

[Husar]

Until the Reformation there was no Bible - it was the advent of printing and the religious turmoil that forced the various factions to actually make authoritativeness statements, even then the choices made by the different groups were - well - different.

The Roman Catholic Bible is different to the Anglican, to the Lutheran, to the Greek orthodox, to the Slavic.

Yes, but there was a bible before that, no? And the texts, regardless of which of them were included, have not been changed, no? And many of the core values are based on relatively "universal" texts, no? How many of the major christian denominations think being gay is not a sin and how often has the stance on being gay changed in the catholic church or its holy texts in the past thousand years? How often has their stance about marriage and other issues which are being contended changed?
Are the greek orthodox pro gay marriage, condoms and female priests because they included a book that says having bisexual orgies is the will of jesus?

[Sigurd]

Are you referring to translations? Those are accurate because the holy spirit would make sure they are, no?
I'm talking from a believer's point of view. If we're going to say they're not, then we know nothing and in that case we don't really need a church because those guys don't know anything either. Or we'll have to trust on Jesus forgiving everything we do wrong but in that case we don't need priests forgiving our sins. And we certainly wouldn't need priests interpreting a flawed book. Besides, the evangelical pastors I know often back up their interpretations by analyzing the original greek or hebrew words as well. So in that way the church is still based on books that haven't changed in over a thousand years, unless you know that the documents are all 15th century forgeries.

I know you are having "tongue in cheek" here and in the previous one... but I'll play dumb.
Let's consider for the sake of this argument that there is a God and that Jesus Christ is His son, who established a church.. and people wrote down stuff, which was inspired by the Holy Ghost. Let's say all that stuff happened.

Can we say that this church exists today? Can we honestly say that we have those books/text in unpolluted versions today? Can we honestly say that the holy spirit always made sure the translators did the translations correct? Can we honestly say that all those involved with the canon the last 1000 years were all saintly, honest and with no hidden agendas? What about the last 2000 years, same questions?
What about those from 70 AD to 1000 AD? Let's say they were corrupt. Were those from 1000 AD till today able to rectify the damage done? ...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A Tudor or Stuart who was a murderer?

How 'bout.... All of them?

Execution is different - these Popes were actual murders, as in they offed people they didn't like personally.


Yes, but there was a bible before that, no? And the texts, regardless of which of them were included, have not been changed, no? And many of the core values are based on relatively "universal" texts, no? How many of the major christian denominations think being gay is not a sin and how often has the stance on being gay changed in the catholic church or its holy texts in the past thousand years? How often has their stance about marriage and other issues which are being contended changed?
Are the greek orthodox pro gay marriage, condoms and female priests because they included a book that says having bisexual orgies is the will of jesus?

How often has the stance on being Gay changed?

I don't know - given that nobody believed being gay was possibly until about 200-150 years ago, not a whole lot. If you're talking about the Roman Catholic Church's stance on sexuality...

I believe it was Lemur who posted the articles about same-sex unions (not marriages) in a previous thread.

[HoreTore]

Execution is different - these Popes were actual murders, as in they offed people they didn't like personally.

I see no difference between killing someone personally because they didn't like them, and having someone else execute them because they didn't like them.

Killing people and generally being corrupt is something both monarchs and popes have enjoyed. The only exception are the ones who never had the opportunity.

[Husar]

I know you are having "tongue in cheek" here and in the previous one... but I'll play dumb.
Let's consider for the sake of this argument that there is a God and that Jesus Christ is His son, who established a church.. and people wrote down stuff, which was inspired by the Holy Ghost. Let's say all that stuff happened.

Can we say that this church exists today? Can we honestly say that we have those books/text in unpolluted versions today? Can we honestly say that the holy spirit always made sure the translators did the translations correct? Can we honestly say that all those involved with the canon the last 1000 years were all saintly, honest and with no hidden agendas? What about the last 2000 years, same questions?
What about those from 70 AD to 1000 AD? Let's say they were corrupt. Were those from 1000 AD till today able to rectify the damage done? ...

Well, if we can't say that then we're probably following a falsified religion and might just go to hell, or maybe there is no hell or no god, oh woops, now it all falls apart. Or maybe god doesn't care and we all go to heaven. If they can't be sure about these things, why does the church have a stance on them anyway? Why don't they just meddle in affairs they can be reasonably sure about instead of changing their version all the time? If the catholic religion of today is completely different from what it's like today then who is going to hell? People 2000 years ago or people today? And if both don't then why should I bother following their teachings in the first place?

Maybe I could also go on as usual and lobby the catholic church until they declare that all my sins are okay and then I'm fine without changing anything about my behaviour. Is that how it should work?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I see no difference between killing someone personally because they didn't like them, and having someone else execute them because they didn't like them.

Killing people and generally being corrupt is something both monarchs and popes have enjoyed. The only exception are the ones who never had the opportunity.

But HoreTore, those Popes were elected.

Anyway, there is a difference and you know it


Well, if we can't say that then we're probably following a falsified religion and might just go to hell, or maybe there is no hell or no god, oh woops, now it all falls apart. Or maybe god doesn't care and we all go to heaven. If they can't be sure about these things, why does the church have a stance on them anyway? Why don't they just meddle in affairs they can be reasonably sure about instead of changing their version all the time? If the catholic religion of today is completely different from what it's like today then who is going to hell? People 2000 years ago or people today? And if both don't then why should I bother following their teachings in the first place?

Maybe I could also go on as usual and lobby the catholic church until they declare that all my sins are okay and then I'm fine without changing anything about my behaviour. Is that how it should work?

There is no German word for faith, then?

[HoreTore]

But HoreTore, those Popes were elected.

If you had the impression that I'm just against the monarch, you've got me wrong; I hate the entire aristocracy equally ~:)

Upper class buggers. Behaving like the murderous scum we all know they are.


Anyway, there is a difference and you know it

I only see a single difference; the one who gets others to do his dirty work for him usually ends up killing a lot more people than the one who has to do it himself. Other than that, zero difference.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you had the impression that I'm just against the monarch, you've got me wrong; I hate the entire aristocracy equally ~:)

Upper class buggers. Behaving like the murderous scum we all know they are.



I only see a single difference; the one who gets others to do his dirty work for him usually ends up killing a lot more people than the one who has to do it himself. Other than that, zero difference.

If the average Pope was part of the aristocracy, you might be on to something.

[HopAlongBunny]

Uhm, the pope is part of an aristocracy. It's kind of hard to not see the entire religious structure as something other than. Unless you are using some definition that escapes me.

[Husar]

There is no German word for faith, then?

There is, but I thought most big religions were based on a bit more than a lot of faith in "don't really know what".
If the bible is so unreliable and faith is all you need, then why do christians read the bible?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Uhm, the pope is part of an aristocracy. It's kind of hard to not see the entire religious structure as something other than. Unless you are using some definition that escapes me.

"Aristocracy" implies an accident of Birth - the Papacy has rarely been such an institution, and certainly isn't today.


There is, but I thought most big religions were based on a bit more than a lot of faith in "don't really know what".
If the bible is so unreliable and faith is all you need, then why do christians read the bible?

Because it was written by our forebears, who also had Faith.

[Papewaio]

Faith, magic, witchcraft.

How do we differentiate between these?

When does a cult go mainstream?

To me it's just a matter of popularity to which category one belongs.

[Strike For The South]

Glauben

HUSAR LOSES.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Faith, magic, witchcraft.

How do we differentiate between these?

When does a cult go mainstream?

To me it's just a matter of popularity to which category one belongs.

Well, you'd be wrong - because Magic is about influencing the world, witchcraft is the practice of magic, and religion is about how you view the world. Christianity, is a cult, a cult is an organisation which has secrets and an initiation.

Cults go "mainstream" when they stop being so secretive and start including people more readily.

[HoreTore]

Well, you'd be wrong - because Magic is about influencing the world, witchcraft is the practice of magic, and religion is about how you view the world. Christianity, is a cult, a cult is an organisation which has secrets and an initiation.

Cults go "mainstream" when they stop being so secretive and start including people more readily.

Have you ever spoken to someone who believes in or practices magic, PVC?

The difference between such a person, and a christian who talks about prayer, is zero.

[Husar]

Because it was written by our forebears, who also had Faith.
What makes it more believable than any other story our forebears with faith wrote? And why are no medieval or more recent texts from people with faith included in the bible then?


Glauben

HUSAR LOSES.
I don't understand and do not believe that so easily.

There is

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Have you ever spoken to someone who believes in or practices magic, PVC?

The difference between such a person, and a christian who talks about prayer, is zero.

Shockingly - I have - they're called Pagans, and Paganism is a religion. Magic is not religion, it is a practice which is related to certain religions (including some branches of Christianity).


What makes it more believable than any other story our forebears with faith wrote? And why are no medieval or more recent texts from people with faith included in the bible then?


I don't understand and do not believe that so easily.

Medieval texts are not included because the texts of the Bible purport to be within a generation of Christ's death - even so, many medieval texts and consular decisions and Canons are considered to be authoritative.

The Bible is a particular collection of texts.

[HoreTore]

Shockingly - I have - they're called Pagans, and Paganism is a religion. Magic is not religion, it is a practice which is related to certain religions (including some branches of Christianity).

They're called quite a lot of things - muslims, christians, "alternatives", pagans, whatever. To say that the magic part is detached from their general world-view is absurd.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I was hoping this thread would stay on topic about the new Pope himself and what his philosophy is, but I guess we gotta start equivocating Christians with 15 year olds drawing pentagrams on their desk.

[HopAlongBunny]

Let's see.

Church hierarchy is set apart from society; chosen by God or chosen of God. The apparatus has an internal self-selecting government. It wields power, spiritual and temporal over it's domain.

I fail to see where this is not an aristocracy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They're called quite a lot of things - muslims, christians, "alternatives", pagans, whatever. To say that the magic part is detached from their general world-view is absurd.

When you said "practice" magic you meant Pagans, don't start spouting bull now. There are plenty of Pagans who don't practice magic.

[HoreTore]

When you said "practice" magic you meant Pagans, don't start spouting bull now. There are plenty of Pagans who don't practice magic.

I did not.

My mother, for example, is knee-deep in "alternative" nonsense, but of course she wouldn't classify herself as "pagan". People like that usually leave it at "spiritual" when describing themselves. The other person I had in mind is a muslim I met in Zanzibar, who I talked with about "magic"(that's the word he used).

I've never met someone who calls themselves a pagan. Most of those are nazi's here anyway.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Let's see.

Church hierarchy is set apart from society; chosen by God or chosen of God. The apparatus has an internal self-selecting government. It wields power, spiritual and temporal over it's domain.

I fail to see where this is not an aristocracy.

Aristocracy strongly suggests heriditary power based on social station.

Autocracy or Oligarchy is the more apt label.

[HoreTore]

Aristocracy strongly suggests heriditary power based on social station.

Autocracy or Oligarchy is the more apt label.

Aristocracy was the greeks name for Rome's social system.

Rome was not built purely on birth.

[Montmorency]

You know, English has a perfectly good word for this situation: "theocrat".

:rolleyes:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Aristocracy was the greeks name for Rome's social system.

Rome was not built purely on birth.

It was the Greek name for their Oligarchs.

[HoreTore]

You know, English has a perfectly good word for this situation: "theocrat".

:rolleyes:

An even better English word, is simply "privileged".

The root of all sadism.

[Caius]

Pope is not pro-life. He is against abortion whatever circumstances... was not pro-life for the opponents of Videla, dictator of Argentina either.
As an argentinian itself, you should check the dossier that Cristina sent, and how Perez Esquivel denied it.

If something comes from Cristina, it has to be a lie somewhere.

In fact, he did in silence help people. So...

[Caius]

BTW, his philosophy has not changed since he was Bishop (maybe?) of Buenos Aires, you know.

He is a simple man, along with other priests do things for the poor and help people to quit drugs when our State and politicians discuss how we can help Iran to make themselves look inoccents in the 94' bombings. And yes, he may seem to not to be prepared for it, and yes, we are proud of "our" Pope.

What most people are proud of him is that he is humble. With a noble spirit. It is all that should matter.

[HoreTore]

Humble, noble and a supporter of a brutal military regime.

He does sum up the catholic church in south america very well...

[Brenus]

“As an argentinian itself, you should check the dossier that Cristina sent, and how Perez Esquivel denied it.” Well, I was in politic at the time of Viola and Videla, when the Argentinian Lefties were dropped in sea, and I don’t remember the church of Argentina, and him, protesting against it.

“If something comes from Cristina, it has to be a lie somewhere.” You are obviously one of her opponent, so it has to be a lie somewhere.:laugh4:

“In fact, he did in silence help people. So...” Aaahhh, the silent opposition, always ready to claim heroism after the fall of a dictatorship… What heroes they are….:yes:

And I don’t take my knowledge from Argentinian sources, but from French Newspapers of the time. The actual Pope (Jorge Mario Bergoglio) was deeply involve AGAINST the Church and the Theology of the Liberation as was the Cardinal Ratzinger (the Pope who just resigned), is closed to the Opus Dei (itself a strong support of Franco in Spain).
As leader of the Argentinian Church, he was considered as the protector of all the Catholic Hierarchy and Priest involved with the dictatorship.
Apparently, he even was involved in the repression again the Priests involved in the Theology of Liberation. He was recognised and named by 2 priests who escaped death as their denouncer in 2012 in Court.

[Kival]

Humble, noble and a supporter of a brutal military regime.

He does sum up the catholic church in south america very well...

Although supporter stretches it a bit, that's a nice catch*.

*I'm not sure if this really means what I mean...