Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The POPE      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Maleman999
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 101
The POPEPage 5 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
I think a way for the Catholic church to be more relevant is to put a maximum age limit on the position of pope. Why is every pope elected a senior citizen? How many popes started getting, or had early signs of, dementia or Alzheimer's when elected, but were still guaranteed the job up until the day they died, even if they became totally incapable of doing their job? The Catholic church is a huge business organization. How many huge corporations would hire a CEO who is in his 70's and keep him at that position for life, even if he became incompetent? I would only be impressed if the church's next pope was in his 50's, and is seen from time to time chatting on his cell phone or sending out a text message, and used Facebook, Twitter, or whatever the latest rage is in social media. Otherwise, I find nothing interesting about an elected senior citizen who is acting like it's the 1930's.
 aj7125
Joined: 11/28/2014
Msg: 102
The POPE
Posted: 10/4/2015 9:47:55 AM
"chatting on his cell phone or sending out a text message, and used Facebook, Twitter"

^^^^^^^^ Ahh yes, you do one or all of these things and a person qualifies.......for what I have no idea.
To the same poster who posted as to why children are baptized and to why they should be able to wait until they are older to decide, I guess these same children should not have any discipline or structure growing up until they are "of age" to decide what THEY think they want and how they want to be in society.

I need to get a twitter account and sign up on facebook, I already have a cell phone. I must be missing out not having those two "powerful" social media thingy's.
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 103
The POPE
Posted: 10/4/2015 9:59:33 AM
Wow. Is there a law that requires you to believe in God, be Catholic and follow the Pope? No.

And if people who are and remain Catholic are fine with what is going on within the Catholic establishment, why should outsiders get to demand change?

No more than people who are not Orthodox Jews should be able to demand that men and woman sit together.

Sure, the homosexual child molesting priests should be dealt with and are being dealt with, last I heard. No one can go back in time and change what has happened. They can only change what WILL happen. From my understanding, a lot has changed.

Secular authorities are dealing with it where they can. Rightly so. No one is saying that what happened to those then children is just fine and dandy.
 474bluemoon
Joined: 9/24/2015
Msg: 104
The POPE
Posted: 10/4/2015 3:23:52 PM

To the same poster who posted as to why children are baptized and to why they should be able to wait until they are older to decide, I guess these same children should not have any discipline or structure growing up until they are "of age" to decide what THEY think they want and how they want to be in society.


Wow, that's a stretch and a bit of a stupid statement. And I don't recall anyone saying children should be raised without discipline or structure...or do you think only the religious are capable of raising "good" children?

I had two sons and we didn't take them to church or discuss God at home. One son found God in his mid 20s and his faith was strong and it brought him comfort. My other son has not found God nor does he seem to want to. I left the choice to them to decide as adults, nothing wrong with that. By the way, neither of them robbed banks or raped and pillaged or beat up old ladies so I guess the disciple and structure was there. The only other thing I did that I wished I had left for them to decide as adults was circumcision...I never should have made that choice for them as infants.

Priests that rape children are pedophiles. Pedophiles.
 congupnaroad
Joined: 7/22/2015
Msg: 105
view profile
History
The POPE
Posted: 10/4/2015 3:40:33 PM

It would be "funny", if it weren't for the tragic consequences of people believing the same stuff that people believed 2,000 years ago.
The RC church doesn't teach that "Jesus would have been conceived just like any other Human",
they teach the "holy trinity", that "jesus is the son of god".


Are you an expert on Catholic theology? And what are the tragic consequences of people believing what people believed 2,000 years ago?


As for the "angel Gabriel" telling people stuff, this is simply primitive superstition and mythology.
It didn't happen


I thought the term " angel" would confuse you.


If it had, then maybe old "Angel Gabe" might have also whispered something in the ears of all those "priests", who raped all those children.
I'll bet those priests told the children that "this is what god wants", too


Gabe wouldn't have lived that long.



This possibility is NEVER ever "taught" at sunday schools. They only ever "teach" the superstitious, supernatural wibble, as if it were "facts"


I can vaguely remember Sunday School, but i do remember being taught how to play Draughts and Chess. In your World are such things superstitious?



There are some contemporary accounts which even name the roman soldier.
But this completely contradicts your earlier assertion that the "child was divine"


And how does that contradict Gabriel's vision that the child Mary was carrying was Divine?



The real truth is that living in such a highly primitive and highly religious society, meant that women who got raped (and impregnated) were stoned to death.
That was probably the reason the whole "virgin birth" story came about


You seem to be implying that 2,000 years ago people were stupid. Well people 2,000 years ago were no less intelligent than they are today.



You seem to say "so what" every time you can't justify something.
The key words are "back then".
Why would you (or anyone else) want these beliefs "respected", and therefore perpetuated..?


And why would you or anyone else wish to quash what other people believe?



"ISIS" are following the direct instructions of "god", as "commanded" in the "old testament".
"Israel" is founded on these myths, and if they can have a "jewish state", then why shouldn't "muslims" want an "islamic state" too..?
By defending religious belief, you are also mitigating all of it's extreme manifestations too


Would you rather live in Israel or an Islamic State?



I've seen your last few posts in the "refugee crisis" thread, and what you think about "those crazy muslims".
How do you know that YOUR religion is "right", and theirs "wrong"..??
-Don't answer that, it was entirely rhetorical.
The answer is; you don't!
(The truth is that none of them are!)


Seeing you are claiming that no religion is right, then cough up some proof that your worldview is the correct one.

The truth is you can't. Anyway a Muslim boy shot and killed a man leaving a Police station on the weekend. All the time chanting "Allah!, Allah!" If I wish to refer to him as a crazy Muslim, I will. Because that is exactly what he was.



Each religion, and it's own various 'sects', splits, and 'schisms', believes that their version is the "truth", and everyone else "wrong".
Each religion, and it's own various 'sects', splits, and 'schisms' within them, believes that they should 'evangelise" , "spread the word", and "convert" other people, believers in other faiths, or non-believers, to their versions of the "truth"


And they are no different to you, because you are saying that everyone else is wrong and you are right. You did after all claim you know better about everything, did you not?



Of course it does.
But why does the RC church seem have acquired so many billions in assets...?
How does that help alleviate poverty and disease..?


Err, they own and fund hospitals. Err, they own and fund schools and universities.



"Mother Teresa" believed that poverty and suffering brought people "closer to god", and so was a "good thing".
-Which probably explains why they didn't spend all the money raised, on improving the austere conditions in their missions.
I'll bet she thought that "self-flagellation" was also a good thing.
Pain and suffering can often induce hallucinations.
But it's not really "god", however much people might like to imagine so.
There are currently over 4,000 different religions.
All believing different things.
Which one(s) is/are "right"...?


I know very little about Mother Teresa, however can you please provide a link claiming that she thought " self-flagellation" was a good thing?
 daynadaze
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 107
view profile
History
The POPE
Posted: 10/4/2015 4:59:30 PM
If a person does not know the difference between being homosexual or being a pedophile, then how can they be taken seriously?
 villabolos
Joined: 7/24/2015
Msg: 108
The POPE
Posted: 10/4/2015 6:20:59 PM
If you believe Jesus is the son of God, would that not make Christianity "the one"?? To me it does.


We all know what Dee is alluding to. IF you look at who the priests were who abused those kids, it's a safe bet most of them are gay.
 474bluemoon
Joined: 9/24/2015
Msg: 109
The POPE
Posted: 10/4/2015 6:37:18 PM
All religions believe their God is "the one". Some have many gods. Faith is faith and not one God is better than the other...to the faithful or at least shouldn't be if they are following their faith.

Yes, we all know what Deevwas alluding to...we always do. The priests who abused children where/are pedophiles. Pedophiles. Whether they were gay or straight is irrelevant. Pedophiles. Criminals. Sick and twisted. And the churches protected them and hid them. Pedophiles. The church is complicit in the crimes.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 110
The POPE
Posted: 10/5/2015 8:03:39 AM

Are you an expert on Catholic theology?

I know more about the contents of the bible and the history of the RC church, than most people who self-identify as "christian believers".
Most have no idea of the barbarity in the beliefs of those early 'civilisations'.
EG "Crucifictions" for theft etc. Or just the absolute disdain in which females were held.


And what are the tragic consequences of people believing what people believed 2,000 years ago?

Where to start...
Stoning raped women, killing your wife and/or children if they disobey you, killing non-believers or believers in "other gods". Believing people to be "possessed" and then killing them, (Incidentally, Epilepsy was also believed to be a "possession", caused by "evil spirits")
And not eating bacon.
To name but a few.
Have you even looked at a bible..>?

I thought the term " angel" would confuse you.

It "confuses" everybody!
What you won't find in the bible is any knowledge or acknowledgement of mental illness, as an illness, or hallucinations. Just "evil spirits", and good spirits "angels of the lord" etc.
These are the beliefs of primitive, frightened, superstitious people.

Gabe wouldn't have lived that long.

Do you know nothing about the "faith" you seem to be defending??
"Angels" are "from heaven".
They "live" there "for ever", apparently.
You're not doing very well so far, as a supposed "christian believer" are you

I can vaguely remember Sunday School, but i do remember being taught how to play Draughts and Chess. In your World are such things superstitious?

It's clear that you haven't remembered any of "the scriptures" you were taught. Perhaps if you had, you might be more critical/sceptical of them.
It will save us both a lot of time if you assume, from here-on, that all of the things which I haven't claimed to be superstitions, are not IMO superstitions.


And how does that contradict Gabriel's vision that the child Mary was carrying was Divine?

Your claim that

Jesus would have been conceived just like any other Human,

Is completely contradicts the myth of "the virgin birth". Women who haven't had sex("virgins") don't get pregnant.
But let's not fall-out about it. I agree with your statement, and that the mythology is bollux.

You seem to be implying that 2,000 years ago people were stupid. Well people 2,000 years ago were no less intelligent than they are today.

Yes, I'm beginning to realise that.
Just kidding.
I've never claimed that people then were "less intelligent",
just that we have more knowledge and access to better and more extensive information, about everything, today. (Well, most of us do)


And why would you or anyone else wish to quash what other people believe?

Have you seen what people's beliefs are causing? ISIS, Al Quaida, Israel, Afghanistan, Etc.

Would you rather live in Israel or an Islamic State?

That's one of those "false dichotomies". I thankfully, don't have to live in either.
But there's little difference IMO.
Both are beliefs, both mutilate their children's genitals, both refuse bacon, and both are violently 'taking land', as instructed in the bible.

Seeing you are claiming that no religion is right, then cough up some proof that your worldview is the correct one. The truth is you can't.

My "proof" is that there are over 4,000 different religions.
For other "proof", read some anthropology, some history, some archaeology, and lots and lots of lovely science.

Anyway a Muslim boy shot and killed a man leaving a Police station on the weekend. All the time chanting "Allah!, Allah!" If I wish to refer to him as a crazy Muslim, I will. Because that is exactly what he was.

But but but.....why would you or anyone else wish to quash what other people believe?
What about "ISIS" and their beliefs..?
Do they have the "right" to believe what they want..?


Each religion, and it's own various 'sects', splits, and 'schisms', believes that their version is the "truth", and everyone else "wrong".
Each religion, and it's own various 'sects', splits, and 'schisms' within them, believes that they should 'evangelise" , "spread the word", and "convert" other people, believers in other faiths, or non-believers, to their versions of the "truth"
And they are no different to you, because you are saying that everyone else is wrong and you are right. You did after all claim you know better about everything, did you not?

Do try and keep up!
For the umpteenth time:
These are the beliefs of people who had only comparatively recently made the transition from 'hunter-gatherer' nomadic existences, to agriculture and, for the first time in human history, settlements.
At about the same time, writing was also invented.

Those people had no accumulated knowledge about agriculture, nutrients, pathogens, disease, etc etc.
They became very superstitious, mainly (IMO) because one year they'd have great crops, and the next, a crop failure.
One year their animals would do well, the next they got sick, and all died.
You have to try and imagine what it was like to live in that era, with absolutely no accumulated knowledge about anything.
No doctors, no vet's, they thought everything had a reason, and they thought it was "evil spirits", or "a curse".

Let's put this into context:
It's only about 150 years ago that Darwin first dared to contradict "creation".
It's only 100 years ago that doctors first started washing their hands and instruments!
Just 50 years ago, we still put unmarried mothers into asylums, and sent their children to Australia,(to be abused by priests!), cigarettes were sold as "good for you", we had apartheid colonies, lead water-pipes, mercury tooth-fillings, asbestos everywhere, and we wore radioactive watches.

We're learning all the time. We change our views all the time. Based on new information, and new discoveries.
I'm not arrogant enough to suppose that we now know everything.
I've no doubt that in 100 years time, they'll be laughing at our current, "lamentably low" knowledge and beliefs, (and I'm talking about science here!) Just as we now do, about the Victorians' knowledge and beliefs.

But religious beliefs aren't allowed to be challenged.?
They've been the same for over 2,000 years!
Tough shit, we don't have any 'blasphemy laws' here anymore now. (Though I'm sure that if religious people have their way, we'd have them back again!)
I just want to see things change.
You seem to want to go backwards.

And don't think for a minute that I'm not full of admiration for the intelligence of some ancient figures.
They were more intelligent than me, without a doubt.
People like Socrates, Plate, Aristotle etc were figuring things out for themselves.
I'm a great admirer of Socrates, but they also made mistakes, because they were working with just the (wrong) information available to them at that time.
Although they're referred to as philosophers, they were really the beginnings of man's quest for scientific knowledge and exploration, and understanding of the world, and how and why it works.
But you have to again think in context
They believed in "The Four Humours" to describe the workings of the human body, something which persisted in our 'medical knowledge', until the 17/18th century.
They believed in "the four elements"; earth, water, air, and fire and sometimes including a fifth element or "quintessence " which we can't see.
But the idea of "atoms" was also conceived back then, though we didn't confirm them for almost another 2, 400 years.

But that was 2,500 years ago.
Socrates was sentenced to death, for daring to ask questions about their then current beliefs.
(My late Dad used to get all angry when he talked about this, as if it happened yesterday! )
They all also believed in various different "gods" too.
"Failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges"
Does sadly, sound horribly familiar.


But why does the RC church seem (to) have acquired so many billions in assets...?
How does that help alleviate poverty and disease..?

Err, they own and fund hospitals. Err, they own and fund schools and universities.

Err.....


Frerk estimates the cash assets of the church's legal entities at about €50 billion. The Catholics, who are not releasing their own figures, accuse Frerk of being a prejudiced, atheistic critic of the church.

The assets, accumulated over the centuries, are invested in many areas, including real estate, church-owned banks, academies, breweries, vineyards, media companies and hospitals. The church also derives income from stock holdings, foundations and bequests. As a rule, all of this money flows into the accounts of the so-called bishop's see. Only a bishop and his closest associates are familiar with this shadow budget, which tax authorities are not required to review. The public budgets of dioceses consist of far less than their total finances.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/financial-scandals-the-hidden-wealth-of-the-catholic-church-a-700513.html
Errr....

1. The Vatican Bank has $8 billion in assets

The Vatican Bank, which has about $8 billion in assets, has often been at the center of scandal and corruption since it was founded in 1942. Pope Benedict began the process of cleaning the bank up, and Francis has continued that work.

Vatican Bank accounts are only supposed to be held by residents of Vatican City and church personnel. But according to Gerald Posner, a Vatican bank scholar and the author of "God's Bankers," these accounts were often awarded to powerful Italian officials looking to stash money without paying taxes.

The bank closed over 4,000 accounts to weed out corruption and currently has a total of 33,400 accounts.

The bank, formally known as the Institute of Works of Religion, has made progress, but still has a long way to go in becoming more transparent.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/24/news/pope-francis-visit-vatican-catholic-church/

Err...

It is impossible to calculate the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church.
In truth, the church itself likely could not answer that question, even if it wished to.

Its investments and spending are kept secret. Its real estate and art have not been properly evaluated, since the church would never sell them.

There is no doubt, however, that between the church’s priceless art, land, gold and investments across the globe, it is one of the wealthiest institutions on Earth.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/wealth-of-roman-catholic-church-impossible-to-calculate
^Funny that it says there; "Its real estate and art have not been properly evaluated", because it says there that the entire Vatican City, and all of it's expensive contents, are valued at just One Euro.
They seem to do the same with all their other assets and cathedrals.
According to that article. the "holy See" also owns "One metric tonne of gold" (2008) How very lovely.

But I'm sure all those magnificent, opulent, guilded buildings do "help to alleviate poverty and disease".. err... somewhere...somehow...?[/sarcasm]


I know very little about Mother Teresa, however can you please provide a link claiming that she thought " self-flagellation" was a good thing?

If you go back and actually read what I wrote, and not what you think I wrote,
you'll see that that was a "bet", as in "I bet".... and therefore an opinion, not a fact.

But it IS a fact that she thought (and said as much) that "suffering brings you closer to god", based on the views of their doctrine.
"Hair shirts", self-flagellation", and other forms of "mortification" including wearing the 'cilise', fasting, and various other forms of self deprivation, including celibacy (hahah! ), and 'vows of silence', are all a part of their beliefs.
Mother Teresa ensured that her charities imposed strict and austere conditions, because she believed that these were "good for the soul".

Catholic schools and orphanages have also historically imposed similarly strict, almost 'spartan' conditions on the children in their care. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" was a popular proverb back then.
Deprivation, and punishment-beatings were considered to be "good for them".
It seems that many "priests" also went even further, with "god's work".
That's why the RC church has so far paid almost £3billion in costs and settlements, for thousands of sex abuse cases.

Maybe some of that can be said to be "easing suffering".
But, as that suffering was directly caused by the church, I don't think that really counts.
I wonder how many of their victims committed suicide, and whether the church considers that to be even more of a "sin", than raping all those children was.

If there's one thing worse than a child rapist, then it's surely a sanctimonious, 'holier than thou' child rapist.?
Phew.
Good luck reading all that!
 congupnaroad
Joined: 7/22/2015
Msg: 111
view profile
History
The POPE
Posted: 10/5/2015 9:24:59 PM

I know more about the contents of the bible and the history of the RC church, than most people who self-identify as "christian believers".
Most have no idea of the barbarity in the beliefs of those early 'civilisations'.
EG "Crucifictions" for theft etc. Or just the absolute disdain in which females were held


And that makes you an expert?



Where to start...
Stoning raped women, killing your wife and/or children if they disobey you, killing non-believers or believers in "other gods". Believing people to be "possessed" and then killing them, (Incidentally, Epilepsy was also believed to be a "possession", caused by "evil spirits")
And not eating bacon.
To name but a few.
Have you even looked at a bible..>?


Didn't you know that Pork was outlawed because originally people had no idea how to cook it properly and it was making people sick? Which once again proves you have no idea !



It "confuses" everybody!
What you won't find in the bible is any knowledge or acknowledgement of mental illness, as an illness, or hallucinations. Just "evil spirits", and good spirits "angels of the lord" etc.
These are the beliefs of primitive, frightened, superstitious people


Why would there be?



Do you know nothing about the "faith" you seem to be defending??
"Angels" are "from heaven".
They "live" there "for ever", apparently.
You're not doing very well so far, as a supposed "christian believer" are you


Well that went sailing right over your head!



It's clear that you haven't remembered any of "the scriptures" you were taught. Perhaps if you had, you might be more critical/sceptical of them.
It will save us both a lot of time if you assume, from here-on, that all of the things which I haven't claimed to be superstitions, are not IMO superstitions


Gee if you are such an expert on RC history, you should know about Augustine and how he interpreted scripture.



Is completely contradicts the myth of "the virgin birth". Women who haven't had sex("virgins") don't get pregnant.
But let's not fall-out about it. I agree with your statement, and that the mythology is bollux


Were you not paying attention when I explained to you that the Hebrew translation of Virgin is an unmarried Woman? Are you that naive that you think unmarried Women don't have sex? Even 2,000 years ago?



Yes, I'm beginning to realise that.
Just kidding.
I've never claimed that people then were "less intelligent",
just that we have more knowledge and access to better and more extensive information, about everything, today. (Well, most of us do)


And your point is?



Have you seen what people's beliefs are causing? ISIS, Al Quaida, Israel, Afghanistan, Etc


Sad isn't it?



That's one of those "false dichotomies". I thankfully, don't have to live in either.
But there's little difference IMO.
Both are beliefs, both mutilate their children's genitals, both refuse bacon, and both are violently 'taking land', as instructed in the bible


Do you have a problem with Male circumcision? Do you have a problem with people that don't eat bacon?




My "proof" is that there are over 4,000 different religions.
For other "proof", read some anthropology, some history, some archaeology, and lots and lots of lovely science


That is not proof, that is called deflection.




But but but.....why would you or anyone else wish to quash what other people believe?
What about "ISIS" and their beliefs..?
Do they have the "right" to believe what they want..?


Yes they do, but they do not have the right to violently impose their beliefs on others by misinterpreting their Quran.




Do try and keep up!
For the umpteenth time:
These are the beliefs of people who had only comparatively recently made the transition from 'hunter-gatherer' nomadic existences, to agriculture and, for the first time in human history, settlements.
At about the same time, writing was also invented


So what is your point?



Those people had no accumulated knowledge about agriculture, nutrients, pathogens, disease, etc etc.
They became very superstitious, mainly (IMO) because one year they'd have great crops, and the next, a crop failure.
One year their animals would do well, the next they got sick, and all died.
You have to try and imagine what it was like to live in that era, with absolutely no accumulated knowledge about anything.
No doctors, no vet's, they thought everything had a reason, and they thought it was "evil spirits", or "a curse"


What is your point? You keep raving on about how people lived in the past and what they possibly believed. But why?




Let's put this into context:
It's only about 150 years ago that Darwin first dared to contradict "creation".
It's only 100 years ago that doctors first started washing their hands and instruments!
Just 50 years ago, we still put unmarried mothers into asylums, and sent their children to Australia,(to be abused by priests!), cigarettes were sold as "good for you", we had apartheid colonies, lead water-pipes, mercury tooth-fillings, asbestos everywhere, and we wore radioactive watches


Darwin never addressed how life originated. He was addressing how life evolved after it originated. Didn't you know that? In fact Darwin has been proven wrong about some things.

I notice you couldn't help but immaturely mention the Catholic priest sex abuse scandal.


We're learning all the time. We change our views all the time. Based on new information, and new discoveries.
I'm not arrogant enough to suppose that we now know everything.
I've no doubt that in 100 years time, they'll be laughing at our current, "lamentably low" knowledge and beliefs, (and I'm talking about science here!) Just as we now do, about the Victorians' knowledge and beliefs


It appears only to be you that are laughing at ancient people's lack of technology.




But religious beliefs aren't allowed to be challenged.?
They've been the same for over 2,000 years!
Tough shit, we don't have any 'blasphemy laws' here anymore now. (Though I'm sure that if religious people have their way, we'd have them back again!)
I just want to see things change.
You seem to want to go backwards



You are the one who keeps bringing up the past, not me. Anyway the first Christians were challenging Judaism weren't they? Martin Luther challenged Catholicism didn't he?


And don't think for a minute that I'm not full of admiration for the intelligence of some ancient figures.
They were more intelligent than me, without a doubt


You finally got something right!


People like Socrates, Plate, Aristotle etc were figuring things out for themselves.
I'm a great admirer of Socrates, but they also made mistakes, because they were working with just the (wrong) information available to them at that time.
Although they're referred to as philosophers, they were really the beginnings of man's quest for scientific knowledge and exploration, and understanding of the world, and how and why it works


And you think I don't know that? So what is your point?



But you have to again think in context
They believed in "The Four Humours" to describe the workings of the human body, something which persisted in our 'medical knowledge', until the 17/18th century.
They believed in "the four elements"; earth, water, air, and fire and sometimes including a fifth element or "quintessence " which we can't see.
But the idea of "atoms" was also conceived back then, though we didn't confirm them for almost another 2, 400 years


Yeah isn't it grand the advances Science has achieved? So what is your point?


But that was 2,500 years ago.
Socrates was sentenced to death, for daring to ask questions about their then current beliefs.
(My late Dad used to get all angry when he talked about this, as if it happened yesterday! )
They all also believed in various different "gods" too.
"Failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges"
Does sadly, sound horribly familiar


Socrates shouldn't have broken the law then should he?





But I'm sure all those magnificent, opulent, guilded buildings do "help to alleviate poverty and disease".. err... somewhere...somehow...?[/sarcasm]


So what would you like the Catholic Church to do.? Close all it's Hospitals and Schools? Close all it's missions in 3rd World countries? Close all the homeless shelters for Women who have been the victims of domestic violence. Close all the charitable organisations they sponsor like St. Vincent de Paul?



If you go back and actually read what I wrote, and not what you think I wrote,
you'll see that that was a "bet", as in "I bet".... and therefore an opinion, not a fact


And a derogatory opinion as well, would have nothing to do with personal bias against Catholics now would it?


But it IS a fact that she thought (and said as much) that "suffering brings you closer to god", based on the views of their doctrine.
"Hair shirts", self-flagellation", and other forms of "mortification" including wearing the 'cilise', fasting, and various other forms of self deprivation, including celibacy (hahah! ), and 'vows of silence', are all a part of their beliefs.
Mother Teresa ensured that her charities imposed strict and austere conditions, because she believed that these were "good for the soul"


Got a link for that?


Catholic schools and orphanages have also historically imposed similarly strict, almost 'spartan' conditions on the children in their care. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" was a popular proverb back then


And so did every other school,or orphanage. So what is your point?


Deprivation, and punishment-beatings were considered to be "good for them".
It seems that many "priests" also went even further, with "god's work".
That's why the RC church has so far paid almost £3billion in costs and settlements, for thousands of sex abuse cases


Yeah they have, so what's your point?




Maybe some of that can be said to be "easing suffering".
But, as that suffering was directly caused by the church, I don't think that really counts.
I wonder how many of their victims committed suicide, and whether the church considers that to be even more of a "sin", than raping all those children was


No it was directly caused by individuals in a position of trust who took advantage of that trust.
 474bluemoon
Joined: 9/24/2015
Msg: 112
The POPE
Posted: 10/6/2015 8:31:25 AM
That must have taken you an hour to use all the little quote things to say....not much of anything.


So what would you like the Catholic Church to do.? Close all it's Hospitals and Schools? Close all it's missions in 3rd World countries? Close all the homeless shelters for Women who have been the victims of domestic violence. Close all the charitable organisations they sponsor like St. Vincent de Paul?


Its not the Catholic Church giving money to fund these, its the faithful. The parishioners that are filling the collection plate every day and supporting these programs with their donations as well as time and money. The "tax payers" if you will.
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 113
The POPE
Posted: 10/6/2015 2:22:02 PM
Posting while traveling. Double
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 114
The POPE
Posted: 10/6/2015 2:23:58 PM
Why should it? People who remain Catholic are satisfied. As are the missionaries sent around the world.

Israel is pretty wealthy. Evet saw those many golden scrolls?So is the national baptist convention.The Ethical society is not too shabby either. So. . .
 daynadaze
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 115
view profile
History
The POPE
Posted: 10/6/2015 2:38:53 PM

Were not even aware of words like peodophile



What? Since when?
 congupnaroad
Joined: 7/22/2015
Msg: 116
view profile
History
The POPE
Posted: 10/7/2015 4:18:33 PM

Have never mentioned nuns on this thread, that’s your forte, however if you think I have you must be hyperventilating or something, have heard it can cause hallucinogenic episodes alright...since when do people have to understand something to see the consequences of it time and time again or even recognise patterns, no less one that’s been in their ranks for quite some time, rituals are the mainstay of the Catholic church, they’re effectively repeated behaviour or actions, can’t believe you’re seriously suggesting the church hierarchy were blind to that kind of behaviour when they promote it often enough, odd how it would only be in relation to child abusing priests they had their blinkers on then eh, for the good of the church of course, certainly not the good of the victims


Well I went to a Catholic school and all these years later it has been revealed that some kids were being abused. I was never aware of it and neither were most of us. Does that make us guilty?

Does that mean we condoned it? I'm sure some of the Brothers that were not doing it were aware of it. They are just as guilty as the perpetrator . I'm also sure that some of the Brothers were not aware of it just like me. Are they guilty?


Here in Australia there is a Royal Commission into institutional responses to child abuse. What has been revealed is that many men became priests solely because they knew they would have access to children. Well how on earth would the Church authorities know that? Sure many Bishops knew about it and just transferred the problem, thus hiding it. They are just as guilty and thankfully many of them have also been charged.

The Royal Commission has also revealed that almost every institution that has access to children, abuse has occurred. That includes schools both public and private, every Church denomination, Sporting clubs, Youth groups, etc, etc.

People like yourself that just harp on the fact that a minority of Catholic priests were child abusers, do nothing to advance the question of how we prevent it happening in the future. Now do you?
 Aprilikeswhiteroses
Joined: 2/28/2015
Msg: 117
The POPE
Posted: 10/7/2015 5:01:16 PM

the churches protected them and hid them. Pedophiles. The church is complicit in the crimes.


First we have to remember that the Priest are human being with defects and have temptations the same way than us. (the devil is everywhere)
I am not going to deny the wrong things some "so called priest" did.
I agree they should be punished. They should pay for their wrong actions in this earth by the man's law.
I think God's law is already punishing them and will keep doing so until they die.


People who are NOT religious do not believe in those things and are living their life full of hate, bitterness and rancor, they are trying to take advantage of those wrong things the "so called priest" did, to denigrate and attack the Catholic religion, they are teaching their children to have hate in their hearts towards others....That's not love towards their kids......That's not good...That's wrong.

Things are changing, parents are being more responsible by talking and asking questions to their children after sunday school (what they did, etc)

We, the ones who believe in God knows the intentions of the Non believers, and do not care about their comments. {even though I do get mad at them sometimes..lol, but I forget quickly.}

Pope Francis said all people who do good works, including atheists, are going to heaven, not just Catholics.
He said:
We all have a duty to do good.
And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace.

If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much.

We Must Meet One Another Doing Good.

 daynadaze
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 118
view profile
History
The POPE
Posted: 10/7/2015 5:21:34 PM

People who are NOT religious do not believe in those things and are living their life full of hate, bitterness and rancor...


Say what???
 Aprilikeswhiteroses
Joined: 2/28/2015
Msg: 119
The POPE
Posted: 10/7/2015 5:38:28 PM


People who are NOT religious do not believe in those things and are living their life full of hate, bitterness and rancor...


Say what???


This is what I said About the Priest who did wrong, and why the people who believe in God feel sorry for them, instead:


I think God's law is already punishing them and will keep doing so until they die.
People who are NOT religious do not believe in those things and are living their life full of hate, bitterness and rancor, they are trying to take advantage of those wrong things the "so called priest" did, to denigrate and attack the Catholic religion, they are teaching their children to have hate in their hearts towards others....That's not love towards their kids......That's not good...That's wrong.



This is what I Meant
Colossians 3:25
But if you do what is wrong, you will be paid back for the wrong you have done. For God has no favorites.
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 120
The POPE
Posted: 10/7/2015 6:13:03 PM
No one, with sense, holds all Rabbis and people of the tribe responsible for this:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/rebel-rabbi-exposes-child-molesters.html.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 121
view profile
History
The POPE
Posted: 10/7/2015 7:10:45 PM
Sexual crimes are not unique to religion. The fact that such crimes take place within a given religious institution is not what makes people hate religion. What is the problem here, and what does justifiably make people hostile towards religion concerning such crimes...is how certain religious institutions, by their nature, deal with these crimes and seem to encourage an atmosphere for them, protecting the criminals and treating them as quasi-exempt from secular justice simply because they are part of that religious family.

That is the real issue. That is why religion potentially deserves special attention and hostility in light of these crimes.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 122
view profile
History
The POPE
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:14:30 AM
^ Correct. I don't see an argument here.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 123
The POPE
Posted: 10/12/2015 10:32:44 AM

And that makes you an expert?

Did I say so..?
It's certainly evident that you're no "expert" yourself, so let's both agree that it's entirely irrelevant .

Didn't you know that Pork was outlawed because originally people had no idea how to cook it properly and it was making people sick? Which once again proves you have no idea !

Wrong (again!).

It's entirely down to religious "rules" concerning "clean" and "unclean" animals.
It was more about "cloven hooves" and "chewing the cud", (Which pigs don't do).

It's thought that these beliefs came from earlier religious beliefs.

Biblical scholars believe that the classification of animals was created to explain pre-existing taboos.[17] Beginning with the Saadia Gaon, several Jewish commentators started to explain these taboos rationalistically; Said himself expresses an argument similar to that of totemism, that the unclean animals were declared so because they were worshipped by other cultures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_animals
Good guess though, and it seems perfectly plausible a reason, until you stop and think about it for a second, their primitive and/or ineffective cooking knowledge would also apply to any other dead animals too. Like chicken, for example.
All would cause people to become sick, if not cooked properly.
Particularly so in warmer environments, (like the Middle East) with no refrigeration.
That's why, even today, in warm countries, meat is often sold and transported still alive, and only 'butchered' at home, immediately before cooking.
Anything which "lives in seas or rivers", but doesn't have both fins and scales, is also considered to be "unclean".
So no tossing off shrimps onto their barbies.


Were you not paying attention when I explained to you that the Hebrew translation of Virgin is an unmarried Woman?

Not really, no.
The King James Version mistranslates the Hebrew word "almah", which means "young woman" as "virgin".
The Hebrew word, "bethulah", means "virgin".
Either way, "Mary" was "espoused" or "married" to "Joseph"

1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Matthew 1
I suspect that the "making a publick [sic] example" would have involved stoning her to death, as instructed, by "god", in their religious "laws".


Are you that naive that you think unmarried Women don't have sex? Even 2,000 years ago?


This allows you to quote a previous post.

Of course they did. But if discovered, the punishment was death by stoning.
If a "virgin" got raped, she was still put to death, but the man who raped her would have to pay her Dad the going rate
It's all in the bible/koran/tora. Delete as applicable.


What about "ISIS" and their beliefs..?
Do they have the "right" to believe what they want..?


Yes they do, but they do not have the right to violently impose their beliefs on others by misinterpreting their Quran.

"Christianity" has been spread all over the world, by exactly that method.
Until recently (2003?) here, "blasphemy" was still a crime, and if you resisted (arrest), violence would be used.
The same went for "homosexuality" until quite recently. "Chemical Castration" was often the 'sentence'.

And when you say "on others", do you mean non-believers, (in their version) in their own countries, or spreading their beliefs to other areas. (As christianity has always done) but it's still ok to hang gay people in their countries, because they're 'muslims' there, and so have muslim laws.?

Darwin never addressed how life originated. He was addressing how life evolved after it originated. Didn't you know that? In fact Darwin has been proven wrong about some things.

Darwin's "theory of evolution", outlined in his book "On the Origins of Species", was a direct contradiction of "Genesis", and the rest of the bible, which stated quite unequivocally that "god" had "created" everything in it's current forms.. There is no mention of any earlier life forms, because they didn't know about that, then.
Of course Darwin has been proved wrong on some things, it was after all, 150 years ago.
. He was a devout "christian" for example.
-Which was the main reason why he didn't publish his work for almost 20 years. he didn't want to upset the church.


I notice you couldn't help but immaturely mention the Catholic priest sex abuse scandal.

Yes. Well spotted.
This is, after all, a thread about the "pope", and the catholic church, which he leads.
My bad?

Look, you can believe whatever you want.
I don't believe it.
If the people who both teach/encourage religions (to children usually) , and who also orchestrate all of the 'worship', in their designated "sanctified places of worship",
and who also claim to be "most in touch with god", or to have "received a calling from god",
and claim to do everything "in the name of god",
claim that "religion is the source of our morality",
yet many of them, soooo many of them, turned out to be sexual deviants, perverts, and child-rapists, possibly child murderers too,
shouldn't their alleged "god" have "stepped-in"..?

Religions claim that "he can work miracle".
They claim "he knows our every thought".
They claim "he can raise the dead", "cure the sick", "destroy whole cities", "turn people to stone/salt", and even "create an entire universe, in just 6 days".
A "god" which demands "worship", and demands that people who don't "worship", in exactly the defined way, are all put to death.

And yet he didn't even bother to stop one single child from being raped,
by the very people "spreading his word".

I call BS.

And to the lady who said

"trying to take advantage of those wrong things the "so called priest" did, to denigrate and attack the Catholic religion, they are teaching their children to have hate in their hearts towards others....That's not love towards their kids......That's not good...That's wrong.

I'm very happy with the way both my sons have grown up. They're fine men, with fine principles.

I taught them "the golden rule", (which long pre-dated any versions of "christianity" or "judaism" stealing it as their own);
"Treat others as you would wish to be treated".
-If you wouldn't like it, then don't do it to others.
It's a simple concept for a child to grasp, but not it seems, for some "christians".

Here's a simple test; If I wrote something ranting-on about you teaching your own children to "have hate in their hearts towards others..."
Or if I wrote that you had "not love towards their kids",
would YOU like it..?
If not, then just don't do it.


I love my kids. they know the meaning of the words; compassion, empathy, telescope, and probably several others too.
I also taught them; to "Question everything"
And then they sayeth unto me "Why?"
And I sayeth unto them; "good work",
and thencehereinfortheverafter I telleth them, for why.
For I have spoken.

Conversely, the bible/tora/koran teaches people to beat their children, (to death, if necessary,) if they "disobey" them.
Eg.

21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Deuteronomy.
Notice- no trial.
That's not very nice, is it..?
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 124
The POPE
Posted: 10/12/2015 12:08:37 PM
Interesting. All that time and research on something you allegedly despise. Hmmm. Methinks you are convincing yourself. Well, if that works . . fine. Good for you.
 daynadaze
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 125
view profile
History
The POPE
Posted: 10/12/2015 1:38:52 PM
Oh come on, how do you know if you don't like or believe in something unless you've found out what it is? The passive/aggressive slams are impotent. Before I became an atheist I read the Bible, then I read it in layman's language, then I read about Judaism, I went to different churches, I studied with a very nice pastor, I invited the JWs in and listened, I even went to one of their meetings, I've had some very religious friends over the years who told me they reasoning...I don't know about others, but I didn't just decide not to believe in what one hears all their life in most American towns while growing up, I researched it. I have sat through VHS tapes on Creationism, along with long, deep discusses with someone who believes in creationism. I began sitting in the library and finding all I could about religions when I was a pre-teen. I've gone to many different types of churches. I really didn't know much about religion when I picked up the interest, it wasn't a need to hate, or whatever, is was a wish to understand because most people can't really tell you much, they just repeat what they've been told.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The POPE