The popes at it again..

[Lord Winter]

I know enough about the Vatican and it's passed to know that it is a corrupt organization. Even going back to issues such as indulgences in the 15th and 16th century this is evident to seem. Again this isn't saying all Catholics are corrupt but the main institution IMO could be a hell of a lot more spiritual and more in touch with God instead of the other act it engages in. The amount of wealth not just the Catholic church but other churches demand is staggering. Religion is a multi billion doller business and if you believe the Pope and co really care about our salvation over there bank balance then that I'm afraid is wrong.

Your losing creditability when your slamming the church for stuff that happened 500 years ago. I agree with you that the Pope isn't the best way to communicate with God, but your going to far when your making him out to be the most evil force ever.

(for the record I agree with you about the whole need to move past the gay issue but there also is progress going on at the same time. Give it a while.

Also as a Christian I would like to ask you which sins have I committed? Not believing in something with no fallible evidence? .

I don't know if the Christan God is the correct God but I do believe that there is some sort of higher power. Look at the order and majesty of the world around you, and tell me that you can't even accept a chance of a God. Being the skeptical child of the enlightenment you are, you should hold everything, especially your own beliefs in question.

Does your teachings also suggest that if a murderer repents his sins he's free to go to heaven but as long as i'm a good man but refuse to accept something that has no solid backing I will rot in hell?

It would appear God doesn't just work in mysterious way but incredibly illogic ones.

Personally, I'm a universalist so I don't think you'll burn in hell anyway. Overall the points irrelevant in a debate about corruption in organized religion.

[tibilicus]

Your losing creditability when your slamming the church for stuff that happened 500 years ago. I agree with you that the Pope isn't the best way to communicate with God, but your going to far when your making him out to be the most evil force ever.

I'm not making him out to be evil. I'm making him out as some one who seems to have the right to bash a whole group of people and get away with it because he is an almighty spiritual leader. He could of said some more censored stuff in that speech and keep every one happy. Instead he played the card which the church of England's Archbishop of Canterbury plays all the time, I'll say something controversial for media attention. Come on popey, if you feel you need to broaden your flock try preaching honesty not hate.

You also say there is progression on the gay thing yet the other day the Pope called it unnatural and a threat to the human race? As well as saying acts to decriminalize it are a step to far. Sounds like great progress to me that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not making him out to be evil. I'm making him out as some one who seems to have the right to bash a whole group of people and get away with it because he is an almighty spiritual leader. He could of said some more censored stuff in that speech and keep every one happy. Instead he played the card which the church of England's Archbishop of Canterbury plays all the time, I'll say something controversial for media attention. Come on popey, if you feel you need to broaden your flock try preaching honesty not hate.

You also say there is progression on the gay thing yet the other day the Pope called it unnatural and a threat to the human race? As well as saying acts to decriminalize it are a step to far. Sounds like great progress to me that.

Look, I know this is a difficult thing for you to grasp but Churchmen are in the buisness of saving souls, not making life easy.

The Pope cannot broaden his flock by sacrificing doctrine on the alter of popularity, if he does that the Faith ceases to have the power to save anyone.

Now, I really want to hear what Docter Williams has said that has you all riled up.

[tibilicus]

Look, I know this is a difficult thing for you to grasp but Churchmen are in the buisness of saving souls, not making life easy.

The Pope cannot broaden his flock by sacrificing doctrine on the alter of popularity, if he does that the Faith ceases to have the power to save anyone.

Now, I really want to hear what Docter Williams has said that has you all riled up.

From your post before this you seem to suggest I can't accept to whole im an evil sinner thing. So I have a question for you. Why can't you just accept when we die we become worm food and that's then end of it? You know as well the Hobbit has some pretty wonderful characters in that much like the bible. I'm starting to think that maybe Gandalf the Gray could be God because it's written in a pretty convincing narrative book.


And doctor Williams had said many things. In particular it was his comment about Sharia Law being accepted in the UK. He knew that wouldn't go down to well with his fellow church members or any one else for that matter. What he did know however is that it would bring the attention of the media on to the church. Something which he felt he needed to do because lets be honest religion isn't really all that important in comparison to what it was here 50 years ago.

[tibilicus]

Also that link to the daily telegraph site above is ignoring the obvious. It claims the pope never said anything offensive towards gays yet this is what the BBC has him credited as saying.

saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour was as important as protecting the environment.

I fail to see how anyone can find that not to be a very backward or crude statement. Then again it is the BBC's opinion against the telegraphs. I wonder which one i'm going to hold closer.. A neutral media source or the daily toriegraph whoops I mean telegraph...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Also that link to the daily telegraph site above is ignoring the obvious. It claims the pope never said anything offensive towards gays yet this is what the BBC has him credited as saying.



I fail to see how anyone can find that not to be a very backward or crude statement. Then again it is the BBC's opinion against the telegraphs. I wonder which one i'm going to hold closer.. A neutral media source or the daily toriegraph whoops I mean telegraph...

The BBC is left-wing, not neutral. Conversely the Telagraph has become increasingly pro-Catholic.

[tibilicus]

The BBC is left-wing, not neutral. Conversely the Telagraph has become increasingly pro-Catholic.

No it is neutral. it may appear left wing to compensate for the fact the media is as a whole is generally left wing. Due to the fact it has access to public funding it is obliged to be politically neutral. Trust me I'm liberal and left wing and the BBC isn't.

The telegraph on the other hand is right wing. That's a certainty. You can probably guess my opinion on that paper due to the fact I hold it in the same fold as the daily mail for my most disliked papers. This isn't about politics though so moving swiftly on.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

From your post before this you seem to suggest I can't accept to whole im an evil sinner thing. So I have a question for you. Why can't you just accept when we die we become worm food and that's then end of it? You know as well the Hobbit has some pretty wonderful characters in that much like the bible. I'm starting to think that maybe Gandalf the Gray could be God because it's written in a pretty convincing narrative book.

Did I say you were evil? I said you weren't perfect, perfection is the standard for entry into heaven.You wanted to know why you, as a "good person" couldn't get into heaven and I responded by pointing out that nobody is perfect, including you. As far as the Hobbit goes, the blunt answer is that Tolkien wasn't claiming any form of divine inspiration.

And doctor Williams had said many things. In particular it was his comment about Sharia Law being accepted in the UK. He knew that wouldn't go down to well with his fellow church members or any one else for that matter. What he did know however is that it would bring the attention of the media on to the church. Something which he felt he needed to do because lets be honest religion isn't really all that important in comparison to what it was here 50 years ago.

He said it was "unavoidable": http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm. A topic here at the .Org a few months ago proved him exactly right. As I said, he's a priest, he's not out to win popularity contests.

[tibilicus]

Did I say you were evil? I said you weren't perfect, perfection is the standard for entry into heaven.You wanted to know why you, as a "good person" couldn't get into heaven and I responded by pointing out that nobody is perfect, including you. As far as the Hobbit goes, the blunt answer is that Tolkien wasn't claiming any form of divine inspiration.



He said it was "unavoidable": http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm. A topic here at the .Org a few months ago proved him exactly right. As I said, he's a priest, he's not out to win popularity contests.

He isn't out to win a popularity contest no. But are you honestly saying he wasn't doing it for publicity?

And another problem I find with religion is the whole they seem to think there better than you approach. It's actually rather offensive to people to call them imperfect because they don't believe in something which has no solid evidence. To get at my original point again basically look at this statement.

saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is as important as protecting the environment.

Now you wont find that offensive due to your personnel beliefs but lets see if you find this offensive..

saving humanity from Christian or Roman Catholic behaviour is as important as protecting the environment.

Are you telling me that wouldn't be offensive to you as a catholic. I'm sure if you were gay you would be offended by a statement such as the first one then wouldn't you. yet your trying to justify it as not offensive. I'm straight and even I find that statement offensive and quite vulgar.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He isn't out to win a popularity contest no. But are you honestly saying he wasn't doing it for publicity?

To be perfectly honest I think the Archbishop is not the most grounded or worldly of people and outside the Church and Seminary he's a fish out of water. He tends to put his foot in it.

And another problem I find with religion is the whole they seem to think there better than you approach. It's actually rather offensive to people to call them imperfect because they don't believe in something which has no solid evidence. To get at my original point again basically look at this statement.

You need to proof read better, you have the wrong "there", makes it a bit difficult to read. To be honest though I find it offensive as well, and I don't think I'm better than an atheist. I don't go in for earthly regeneration of sanctification.

To deal with your point though, I saw the BBC tonight, as far as I can gather he did not say that. What he actually said is that men are men, women are women and the only good sex is the baby-making kind after the relationship has been sanctified by the Roman Church.

Now, I never actually said he was right, what I said was that he's not saying it just because he's Roman Catholic, and that there is a strong secular anti-homosexual arguement which predates Christianity.

Anyway, you have to admit that at a very basic biological level he has a point. If the only sex was homosexual then hummanity would be finished in a generation.

Ultimately this has to do with power=politics, not homsexuality; that's just a side issue. The problem with gender theory for the Roman Catholic Church is that if men and women are essentially the same. and are only distinguished by learned behaviours, then the arguement for closing the priesthood to women begins to break down.