Alright, everyone here knows I'm not a fan of Catholics. I believe their behavior throughout history is marked with egregious misunderstandings of scripture, greed, and idolatry. As a result, they have hurt a great deal of people and, more importantly, given Christianity a bad name.

However, Pope Benedict's speech in Germany (http://tinyurl.com/r7yrh) was not offensive, and the reaction of some Muslims around the world is completely unnecessary. Please read the speech in it's entirety before responding to this thread. Any comments claiming that he attacked Islam inappropriately will be considered as indication that you did not, in fact, read the speech.

I found an article written by Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. that I wanted to share with the forum.

quote:

By Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

September 25, 2006

The violent reaction of a segment of the Muslim world to the words of Pope Benedict XVI’s speech last week is nothing but appalling. After reading the speech in its entirety, I was shocked that it has led to at least seven church burnings in Palestine and the murder of a nun in Somalia. Ironically, the Pope’s speech was a call for dialogue and reasoning between Christianity and Islam. The violence is patently evil and cannot be condoned. Further, only the most disingenuous or naïve person will bring blame upon the Pope for such a vicious response.

A congregational leader recounted a story of a violent Islamic attack on of the pastors of the First Baptist Church of Kaduna, Nigeria. Six years ago, radical Islamists seized the pastor from his church, killed him, butchered his body like an animal, chopped up pews for kindling and burned his body. The Bible was thrown on top of the pyre as a final statement of religious superiority.

Last month, Olaf Wiig and Steve Centanni of Fox News were captured in the Gaza strip. “We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint,” Centanni told FOX News. Where will the attacks end? It’s hard to say. The radical Islamists have been engaged in this “war” for at least twenty years.

The kind of violence created by the Pope’s speech is nothing more than a religious, terrorist, bully fest. Its goal is to intimidate our religious leaders and curtail our basic rights – freedom of speech and freedom of religion. As a young kid growing up in a tough neighborhood, I learned that if I gave in to a bully today, he would eventually take my lunch money everyday. But, I could make a much bigger assailant back off, if I put on my game face and refused to be intimidated.

Similarly, if the Pope backs down, he will inadvertently embolden our opponents. There is no telling how many other religious workers will be silenced, hurt, or martyred around the world. The Pope has got to put on his game face and stay strong. In addition, Christian ministers of every denomination should denounce this kind of violence.

Unfortunately, many Americans think that somehow the U.S. is the ultimate aggressor and that evangelical Christians have egged the Bush administration into an imperialistic, neo-crusade mindset. These non-religious, often anti-faith people want to reject Christianity. Perhaps Ann Coulter is correct in naming these godless people “members of the church of liberalism.”

Several months ago, a talk show host screamed at me on the air, “Tell me one place where Jesus told people to raise an army or to arm themselves?” As I paused to think, I realized this “friendly” interview had turned to the attack-dog mode and I was the unsuspecting victim. “You call yourself a minister!” the sneering voice went on to proclaim, “I know that it makes you feel good --- being in meetings with the President….”

The call became so insulting that I simply hung up. Later, I thought about how often self-righteous people with no biblical framework attempt to critique organized religion’s motives and our faithfulness to Christ’s teachings.

The Bible clearly says that believers should obey their own government and the laws of the land (Romans 13:4-8). In addition, the scriptures give government the responsibility to collect taxes, perform capital punishment, and wage war, along with a myriad of other protective responsibilities. Vigilantism based on personal whim or insult is foreign to our faith. If governments don’t do their jobs well, war may become an unwanted result of anarchy or political license.

So what does the Bible teach about dealing with rogue regimes? The answer is clear. From the Old Testament to the New, we see God backing one army versus another – one group over another. God often intervened on behalf of Israel or God-fearing Israelis in battles and civil wars in the scriptures.

Don’t get me wrong; I am not advocating a Christian jihad or some reactionary civil movement. I am just saying that sometimes evil raises its ugly head and must be addressed. For example, most rational people today would say that Hitler was evil and that his military agenda had to be stopped. I thank God that my father, my uncle, and other relatives enlisted in the military and fought for freedom. I am also thankful for the brave young men and women that fight for us today. They are heroes.

The answer to the talk show hosts question is found in Luke 22:36. Astonishingly, told His disciples to go and buy some swords. The “turn-the-other-cheek” teacher actually had a balanced worldview. He did not advocate living as a servant of violence, yet he was not opposed to his disciples owning weapons.

It’s easier to be an absolute hawk or dove---for or against war-- than it is to be a fully devoted follower of Christ. What the Lord is looking for is wise stewardship of all earthly power including political, monetary, and military power. What is needed in America are equal doses of realism, emotional sobriety, and faith.

To paraphrase, the Pope said Islam needs to live peacably with the rest of the world. I do not see what is so offensive about that, and I find it completely ironic that their reaction to his very logical and respectful request has been a violent one.

Why is it wrong for anyone, not just Christians, to encourage Islam to be peaceful ? Most of them already are...for those that aren't, they are doing their religion a disservice, as well as the rest of the world.

Calling for the Pope's death, burning dummies of him in the streets, burning churches to the ground, and declaring Holy War on Christians world wide is simply outrageous. Our media, our churches, and our government should be taking a strong stand against this kind of tyrannical violence. Yet, they aren't.

Who thinks what the Pope said was offensive ? Of those, who thinks that whatever is to be found offensive in his speech warrants the kind of backlash Christians have received ? Should he apologize ?

There is no idolatry in the Catholic Church.

Period.

Greed doesn't prove that they are wrong, most really aren't that greedy.

What scripture misunderstandings.

Zman, stay on topic.

It is not that what the Pope said was so offensive. Saying that it is the popes fault is comming dangerously close to saying that it is a rape victims fault for dressing provocativly. The speech is just an exscuse to go and burn churches and kill people same as the cartoon. I am suprised they were not chanting death to America like they did to protest a Dutch cartoon.

I don't think the Pope should have to apologize. First, as pointed out, he was merely paraphrasing. Second, I believe in freedom of speech, and anyone should be able to voice their opinion, regardless of how "offended" others are by it. Third, I happen to agree that the Muslim religion promotes a society of primitive violence and oppression. Consider the nation of Saudi Arabia, a theocracy that consists of 30 million people, all Muslims. The penalty for blasphemy in Saudi Arabia? Death. The penalty for apostacy in Saudi Arabia? Death. This nation of 30 million people are no "small group of extremists", but a representation of a Muslim ideal. An ideal that should make any moderate Muslim seriously reconsider the true nature of their religion.

[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 09-26-2006).]

Protestant's can't stand that there is a german pope, especially one who was involved in the hitler youth

muslims are dogs, nothing new here

The Moslems are not dogs, they merely have a different culture to ours. In fact, they see us as dogs who let ‘our women’ run rampant. If peopled stopped for a second, and tried to see where each other was coming from morally, perhaps things will become clearer.

It is obvious that a minority of Moslems did overreact to what the pope said, and, in my opinion, the pope shouldn’t be held accountable for their reactions. But one has to question why he read that passage, and why he didn’t make it clear that it wasn’t his point-of-view. Surely he knew the media could easily misconstrue it?

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

The Moslems are not dogs, they merely have a different culture to ours. In fact, they see us as dogs who let ‘our women’ run rampant. If peopled stopped for a second, and tried to see where each other was coming from morally, perhaps things will become clearer.

And I suppose we should tolerate primitive tribes who practice cannibalism because it's "part of their culture"?

Fuck culture. If culture violates the basic rights of human beings, then culture needs to change. And women have a basic right to be allowed to vote, leave the house without a male escort, show their face, speak their mind, get an education, etc., without being impeded by some 'culture'. People have the right to believe what they want, or say "Muhammed sucks", without threat of their fucking head being chopped off or being buried alive (I believe that's the penalty for being gay).

Maybe we should legalize slavery again. After all, one could say it was a huge part of the southern culture in early America.

Get a grip. Just because an attribute of a society can be deemed 'cultural' is no excuse for just letting it be.

[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 09-26-2006).]

quote: the basic rights of human beings

This is where I laugh my head off. There are no basic rights, they're all subjective, they're all 'spooks', they're all in your head. There's no right to life, there's no right to anything.

edit - and all I was saying was that instead of branding them as monsters, we should realise they're people too and try and see it from their perspective and come to understand them. Peace is made through understanding, not calling each other evil.

Calling them dogs and scum is only going to cause more antagonism.



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 09-26-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

There is no idolatry in the Catholic Church.

Period.

Greed doesn't prove that they are wrong, most really aren't that greedy.

What scripture misunderstandings.

She thinks all Catholics worship the pope, worship mary, and worship statues of saints. She has repeatedly referred to Roman Catholicism as a "cult". The only reason she is even defending the pope is because what he says coincides with her political beliefs, otherwise she would be denouncing him as a false prophet.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

Calling them dogs and scum is only going to cause more antagonism.

Who cares? There are no rights. There is no such thing as "good" or "evil." They're all subjective, they're all 'spooks', they're all in your head. There's no right to life, there's no right to anything, nothing is "right" or "wrong."

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Even though they're 'spooks', people still care, and looking at it from the perspective of people possessed by 'spooks', I think that what you are doing is stupid.

^

Then by the same token, looking at it from the perspective of the vast majority of the world, there are "basic human rights" and these religious nut jubs are violating them (or wish to violate them). You have no point.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Who cares? There are no rights. There is no such thing as "good" or "evil." They're all subjective, they're all 'spooks', they're all in your head. There's no right to life, there's no right to anything, nothing is "right" or "wrong."

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Exactly. Raw_Power is self-pwned by his own moral relativism. I happen to think there are basic human rights, and that I have a right to call these people primitive bloodthirsty fanatics sharing a mass delusion. Instead of telling me I'm wrong, wouldn't it be better to try and understand me?

Why don't you go to Saudi Arabia and try to spread your relativism to them. Your head will end up on a fucking post in the ground.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

But one has to question why he read that passage, and why he didn’t make it clear that it wasn’t his point-of-view. Surely he knew the media could easily misconstrue it?[/B]

He used it as a way to example how a bridge could be created between the Islam and other cultures. He must've taken for granted people's tendency to take things out of context.

Your subjective morality is a pretty bad idea, buddy. If somebody was going to kill you because it was a part of his culture, methinks you'd be singing a different tune. Millions of Jews were slaughtered in the Holocaust because it was a part of the Nazi culture to persecute the Jews. Does that make it right or excusable?

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

It is not that what the Pope said was so offensive. Saying that it is the popes fault is comming dangerously close to saying that it is a rape victims fault for dressing provocativly. The speech is just an exscuse to go and burn churches and kill people same as the cartoon. I am suprised they were not chanting death to America like they did to protest a Dutch cartoon.

Well put. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

I don't think the Pope should have to apologize. First, as pointed out, he was merely paraphrasing. Second, I believe in freedom of speech, and anyone should be able to voice their opinion, regardless of how "offended" others are by it. Third, I happen to agree that the Muslim religion promotes a society of primitive violence and oppression. Consider the nation of Saudi Arabia, a theocracy that consists of 30 million people, all Muslims. The penalty for blasphemy in Saudi Arabia? Death. The penalty for apostacy in Saudi Arabia? Death. This nation of 30 million people are no "small group of extremists", but a representation of a Muslim ideal. An ideal that should make any moderate Muslim seriously reconsider the true nature of their religion.

I agreed with everything you said, but I think the Pope was more concerned about their violence towards "infidels"...people that do not subscribe to the Muslim religion.

This "convert or die" mentality is what is hurting Islam, and peaceful Muslims the world over should be applauding the Pope. If the extremist's would heed his words, the ever-growing distrust and animosity for them around the world would dissipate. He's done them a favor: shown them reason when they cannot find it themselves.

quote:Originally posted by shuu:

Protestant's can't stand that there is a german pope, especially one who was involved in the hitler youth

Um...what ? That was completely irrelevant, off-topic, and not even remotely accurate.

I'm a Protestant, and I could care less what ethnicity the Pope is. I haven't heard a single Protestant whining about his being German, either...I don't see what possible difference that could make.

I think the muslim outrage had less to do with what he said as it did with how he said it.

Honestly I think the whole thing was an exceedingly clever diplomatic mind game by the Pope. By framing his critique in a way designed to cause insult and then apologizing for his crassness he simultaneously allowed the Muslim leadership to save face in front of their followers when dealing with criticism and showed them he is a reasonable man open to serious two-way dialogue.

Of course I could be reading too much into it but I would think anyone who gets elected Pope is going to have massive experience in regards to diplomatic intrigue after surviving decades of Vatican politics.

quote:Originally posted by FunkyZombie:

By framing his critique in a way designed to cause insult and then apologizing for his crassness he simultaneously allowed the Muslim leadership to save face in front of their followers when dealing with criticism and showed them he is a reasonable man open to serious two-way dialogue.

He didn't apologise for saying it. He basicly said "I'm sorry you were ofended.". He is afterall the friken Pope, infalible and all.

I wish we could post pics. Just for Buddy Christ and the Family guy Pope.

quote:Originally posted by FunkyZombie:

I think the muslim outrage had less to do with what he said as it did with how he said it.



It's clearly a provocative statement - when taken out of context, question that follows: is the Pope naive or is there a hidden agenda?

How would that come across to a muslim? Sounds harmless enough, to a modern westerner, but in the context of a couple of thousand years of feuding between the RC's and Islam?

I dunno http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif) if the positions were reversed and an Imam used a statement calling Jesus message evil, how would the RC's react? Would that be a good way to begin a dialogue to reach an agreement? Are the RC's an organisation actually likely to be seeking an understanding? Historically they've been fairly inflexible so I'm thinking it would sound more like a challenge to Islam to defend Mohammeds message.

quote:"While the pope succeeded in enraging millions of Muslims, the main purpose of his speech was to chastise scientists and secularists for being, well, too reasonable. It seems that nonbelievers still (perversely) demand too much empirical evidence and logical support for their worldview. Believing that he was cutting to the quick of the human dilemma, the pope reminded an expectant world that science cannot pull itself up by its own bootstraps: It cannot, for instance, explain why the universe is comprehensible at all. It turns out that this is a job for... (wait for it) ... Christianity. Why is the world susceptible to rational understanding? Because God made it that way. While the pope is not much of a conjurer, many intelligent and well-intentioned people imagined they actually glimpsed a rabbit in this old hat. Andrew Sullivan, for instance, praised the pope's "deep and complicated" address for its "clarity and openness." Here is the heart of the pope's argument, excerpted from his concluding remarks. I have added my own commentary throughout."

http://tinyurl.com/nncvu

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

She thinks all Catholics worship the pope, worship mary, and worship statues of saints. She has repeatedly referred to Roman Catholicism as a "cult". The only reason she is even defending the pope is because what he says coincides with her political beliefs, otherwise she would be denouncing him as a false prophet.



First of all, you don't speak for me. Second, just TRY and stay on topic...you can do it. I have "faith" in you.

quote:Originally posted by FunkyZombie:

I think the muslim outrage had less to do with what he said as it did with how he said it.

Pray tell, "how" did he say it ?

Interestingly, this speech was an excerpt of previous writings by Pope Benedict...they've been published for 2 years. This only became an issue when the media got a hold of it, took it out of context, and distributed it evenly throughout the world, INTENDING to incite violence among Muslims.

quote:Honestly I think the whole thing was an exceedingly clever diplomatic mind game by the Pope. By framing his critique in a way designed to cause insult and then apologizing for his crassness he simultaneously allowed the Muslim leadership to save face in front of their followers when dealing with criticism and showed them he is a reasonable man open to serious two-way dialogue.

He didn't apologize, and I'd like you to point out where he was "crass".

Muslims leadership doesn't feel the need to save face when it comes to challenges made by Christians. In fact, many of the high ranking religious figures called for his head on a platter.

quote:Of course I could be reading too much into it but I would think anyone who gets elected Pope is going to have massive experience in regards to diplomatic intrigue after surviving decades of Vatican politics.

As the leader of one of the largest Christian sects in the world, I am sure that his words were sincere, and very carefully thought out. He said what he meant: they need to stop being violent.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

"While the pope succeeded in enraging millions of Muslims, the main purpose of his speech was to chastise scientists and secularists for being, well, too reasonable. It seems that nonbelievers still (perversely) demand too much empirical evidence and logical support for their worldview. Believing that he was cutting to the quick of the human dilemma, the pope reminded an expectant world that science cannot pull itself up by its own bootstraps: It cannot, for instance, explain why the universe is comprehensible at all. It turns out that this is a job for... (wait for it) ... Christianity. Why is the world susceptible to rational understanding? Because God made it that way. While the pope is not much of a conjurer, many intelligent and well-intentioned people imagined they actually glimpsed a rabbit in this old hat. Andrew Sullivan, for instance, praised the pope's "deep and complicated" address for its "clarity and openness." Here is the heart of the pope's argument, excerpted from his concluding remarks. I have added my own commentary throughout."

http://tinyurl.com/nncvu

Did you read the speech ? That's not what he said at all.

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

I dunno http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif) if the positions were reversed and an Imam used a statement calling Jesus message evil, how would the RC's react?

See now, that is wholly irrelevant, because Jesus never waged war...on anyone. He never murdered in the name of God. Muhammed did. If Imam's and cleric's felt the need to defame Christ in that manner, it would be nothing more than falsification. What the Pope said was an accurate portroyal of some of Islam's history, not just modern occurrences. The fact that the founder of the religion was a war-monger makes a comparison to Christ an impossibility.

Also, Christians get made fun of all the time. We are constantly ridiculed for our faith, and just look at what Madonna is doing to the cross and the image of Christ's sacrifice. You don't see any of us burning dummies of her in effigy...

quote:Would that be a good way to begin a dialogue to reach an agreement? Are the RC's an organisation actually likely to be seeking an understanding? Historically they've been fairly inflexible so I'm thinking it would sound more like a challenge to Islam to defend Mohammeds message.

The RC's aren't killing female adherents (http://tinyurl.com/zk3gm). They aren't burning down mosques (http://americandaily.com/article/15592) in retaliation for things that are said against them.

Inflexible is completely different than violent/murderous.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-27-2006).]

So that's why we have all the war

and terrorism in the middle east?

Them damn muslims just can't stand

to see people have other religions?

So if we kill enough muslims, we

can finally have peace on earth?

You were probably being sarcastic, but it's a sad fact that there is truth in what you said. It's not just that (radical) Muslims cannot stand other religions. They cannot accept any belief that is not Muslim. It matters not whether you are Christian, Hindu, Atheist, or whatever. If you aren't willing to convert to Islam, you must be put to death.

You can't negotiate with someone who demands your conversion or death. Your only options are to either convert, die , or kill them first.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The RC's aren't killing people. They aren't burning down mosques, and killing women Muslims in retaliation for things that are said against them.

Inflexible is completely different than violent/murderous.

Maybe not now, however their past is chock full of violence and in referring to the violence of Islamic history the Pope has set the context. In the context of history do you think that future humans, say two thousand years hence, will make any distinction between Islamic and Roman Catholic violence simply because the RC's have not used it recently?

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

First of all, you don't speak for me. Second, just TRY and stay on topic...you can do it. I have "faith" in you.

So you deny ever typing those things?

I thought you never lied...

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Maybe not now, however their past is chock full of violence and in referring to the violence of Islamic history the Pope has set the context. In the context of history do you think that future humans, say two thousand years hence, will make any distinction between Islamic and Roman Catholic violence simply because the RC's have not used it recently?

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Chalk full ? You mean the two instances called the Crusades and the Inquisition ? Psh. Let's not go there, in an effort to eliminate the trite.

TODAY, Catholics are not doing these things. In fact, no other religion is as violent as Islam. Granted, MOST of the adherents are peaceful, but then...they are doing nothing to stop the violent ones.

You cannot compare the violence of today to the violence of several hundred years ago, because there is nothing we can do about the violence committed several hundred years ago. We CAN do something about the violence TODAY. And where is the violence stemming from ? The Muslim extremist's. The Pope was right, and so is any other person who denounces this behavior.

Shooting nuns and burning down churches is NOT the way to get people to embrace and respect your religion. The Pope shouldn't have to apologize for his sobering and reflective comments.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

So you deny ever typing those things?

I thought you never lied...

I said nothing about it at all. I said you don't speak for me. I also said you are capable of staying on topic...are you not ?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Did you read the speech ? That's not what he said at all.

Actually, yes it is. The Pope's main point is that (according to him) scientific reasoning is leaving out "god" out of the discussion:

"This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned"

http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748

The Pope believes that scientific reasoning is not enough ("cannot pull itself up by its own bootstraps" as Sam Harris puts it), and that it should be accompanied with faith:

"And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is - as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector - the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons."

Sam Harris read the Papal Address just fine, and it seems Real.PUA did so as well.

Rust:

I was referring to this portion...

quote:While the pope succeeded in enraging millions of Muslims, the main purpose of his speech was to chastise scientists and secularists for being, well, too reasonable.

That's not what the Pope said at all. He does ask that they also consider God in the mix, but I don't see anything even remotely indicating that he was chastising scientists for being "too reasonable". He chastised them for excluding God from their hypothesis.

"We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons."

When you believe that reason should not be the only thing that permeates someone elses thinking, then to describe someone who is only (or vastly so) concerned with reason as "too reasonable", would be accurate within that point of view.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-28-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I said nothing about it at all. I said you don't speak for me. I also said you are capable of staying on topic...are you not ?

So you still think that ALL Catholics are statue worshipping cultists right, that believe Mary is more important than God? I'm pretty sure that's what you said, paraphrased of course.

I also never strayed from the discussion. I answered the question of someone else(not you).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Pray tell, "how" did he say it ?

Interestingly, this speech was an excerpt of previous writings by Pope Benedict...they've been published for 2 years. This only became an issue when the media got a hold of it, took it out of context, and distributed it evenly throughout the world, INTENDING to incite violence among Muslims.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached"."

If you can't see how that could be considered inflammatory The I really don't know what to tell you.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

He didn't apologize, and I'd like you to point out where he was "crass".

Muslims leadership doesn't feel the need to save face when it comes to challenges made by Christians. In fact, many of the high ranking religious figures called for his head on a platter.



I believe I already pointed out the crass statement, and the Pope did indeed issue an apology not for his message but for the insult his statement caused. Which is my point.

With regards to saving face I assure you they are very much concerned about it . If they weren't they would have ignored the Pope's statement as inconsequential and irrelevant.

Would you care to back up your statement regarding how "many of the high ranking religious figures called for his head on a platter.". From what I've seen all the rational religious leaders have accepted his apology and have either moved on or are in the process of moving on. The Pope realizes there is no point in establishing dialogue with the nutjob extremists so this statement was never really addressed to them.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

As the leader of one of the largest Christian sects in the world, I am sure that his words were sincere, and very carefully thought out. He said what he meant: they need to stop being violent.



I'm sure his words were sincere as well, in fact I'm not saying other wise. What I'm saying is that the Pope didn't just come out politely and say "Hey you Muslims need to chill out". He realized that at best the statement would be ignored or at worst be taken as an insult and either way the message would be lost. So he gave them a red herring to focus their ire upon allowing him to apologize not for his message but for the way he said it. The Muslims who accept his apology are obviously rational and open to dialogue the ones who don't are obviously irational and not worth talking to.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Chalk full ? You mean the two instances called the Crusades and the Inquisition ? Psh. Let's not go there, in an effort to eliminate the trite.

How is it "trite" http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)to recall the immense suffering of millions of human beings? How do you so easily trivialise injustice and suffering by dismissing the crusades and inquisitions with a "Psh", as if they were minor and the only atrocities committed by the RC's?

quote:TODAY, Catholics are not doing these things. In fact, no other religion is as violent as Islam. Granted, MOST of the adherents are peaceful, but then...they are doing nothing to stop the violent ones.

You cannot compare the violence of today to the violence of several hundred years ago, because there is nothing we can do about the violence committed several hundred years ago. We CAN do something about the violence TODAY. And where is the violence stemming from ? The Muslim extremist's. The Pope was right, and so is any other person who denounces this behavior.

Shooting nuns and burning down churches is NOT the way to get people to embrace and respect your religion. The Pope shouldn't have to apologize for his sobering and reflective comments.

[/B]

You obviously have not read much of history or you would know much more about the violent activities of the RC's to much later dates. Point is it is the same system, it continually produces evidence of it's corruption, witness paedophiles, it continues with the myth of infallibility, and; whilst it prohibits contraception it causes as much suffering as any other form of violence. In fact violence in it's wider sense includes acts of mental as well as physical violence, and it can include deprivation of needs and denial of rights.

The dialogue seems a red herring when it is obvious the Pope and his minions will not budge from doctrinal positions that are totally incompatible and hostile to Islam. You might also recall that Indonesia has recorded many instances of 'xian' violence towards muslims in recent times - the 'xians' are alleged to have committed acts of violence, murdering people and destruction of property. This whole thing appears nothing more than a publicity beat up for the Pope to push his version of 'truth' and one wonders what impells you to passionately defend it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Just slightly off topic but perhaps helpful for all those proclaiming that the new pope is german...HE ISN'T!

He is Bavarian. Anyone who knows Germany and the germans will tell you that that is something totally different.

Within living memory Bavaria was an independent country, with its own king, own laws, own customs.

And ,most importantly, it's own take on Catholicism.



edit.Off the top of my head it ceased to be an independant state less than 10 years before the pope was born.



[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 09-28-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

You obviously have not read much of history or you would know much more about the violent activities of the RC's to much later dates. Point is it is the same system, it continually produces evidence of it's corruption, witness paedophiles, it continues with the myth of infallibility, and; whilst it prohibits contraception it causes as much suffering as any other form of violence. In fact violence in it's wider sense includes acts of mental as well as physical violence, and it can include deprivation of needs and denial of rights.

Ah yes, the rampant pedophilia that has happened in less than 1% of all Roman Catholic priests. If there was ever a sign of corruption, it would be the actions of individuals that number less than 1% of the whole.

You also act like violence was only the acts of the courts, and it appears you as well as DS have a shoddy history background. If you look into it, the inquisition was just as much a religious court as it was a political court. Kings used the inquisition just as much as the clergy did. But I'm sure that fact slipped your mind.

The fact is the Catholic Church is not perfect, it never was perfect, and it will never be perfect. Everyone knows that. However, you'd be doing a grave injustice to the work of reformist popes to think that the Catholic Church of 500 years ago is institutionally and idealogically the same as the Catholic Church of today.

Can you admit that at least?

The Catholic Church has at least had the balls to come out and admit its past mistakes, which is something that many individuals can't do, let alone internation churches.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

If you look into it, the inquisition was just as much a religious court as it was a political court. Kings used the inquisition just as much as the clergy did. But I'm sure that fact slipped your mind.

The (Spanish) Inquisition was also condemned several times by Pope Sixtus IV, but he was intimidated into staying officially silent on the matter by Ferdinand and Isbella, who found the Inquisition to be a useful tool and threatened to withdraw their support from the pope/Church. Many other Catholics are recorded as not supporting the Inquisition, as well; many inquisitors were hated even by the faithful.

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 09-28-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:



You also act like violence was only the acts of the courts, and it appears you as well as DS have a shoddy history background. If you look into it, the inquisition was just as much a religious court as it was a political court. Kings used the inquisition just as much as the clergy did. But I'm sure that fact slipped your mind.

The fact is the Catholic Church is not perfect, it never was perfect, and it will never be perfect. Everyone knows that. However, you'd be doing a grave injustice to the work of reformist popes to think that the Catholic Church of 500 years ago is institutionally and idealogically the same as the Catholic Church of today.

Can you admit that at least?



Have they changed their rules regarding the Pope being infallible? Is he still 'God' on earth? Does the RC church still teach that during the mass the wafer actually changes into the flesh of Christ? Are they still promoting ignorance and suffering thru doctrines like prohibiting birth control?

The inquisition in Spain was only a fraction of the violence committed in the name of Rome. For example: Whole nations were wiped out in America and their history burned by RC priests. Educate yourself, read a book called "The Secret History of The Jesuits"(Google it) and "Fox's Book Of Martyrs".

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Have they changed their rules regarding the Pope being infallible? Is he still 'God' on earth?

The Pope has never been considered completely infallible. He is regarded as infallible only when speaking about the Catholic Church's doctrine.

[This message has been edited by King_Cotton (edited 09-28-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Have they changed their rules regarding the Pope being infallible? Is he still 'God' on earth? Does the RC church still teach that during the mass the wafer actually changes into the flesh of Christ? Are they still promoting ignorance and suffering thru doctrines like prohibiting birth control?

The inquisition in Spain was only a fraction of the violence committed in the name of Rome. For example: Whole nations were wiped out in America and their history burned by RC priests. Educate yourself, read a book called "The Secret History of The Jesuits"(Google it) and "Fox's Book Of Martyrs".

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



And transubstantiation bothers you how?

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Have they changed their rules regarding the Pope being infallible? Is he still 'God' on earth? Does the RC church still teach that during the mass the wafer actually changes into the flesh of Christ? Are they still promoting ignorance and suffering thru doctrines like prohibiting birth control?

Catholics don't believe that the pope is God on earth, so I'm very suspicious of your knowledge on this subject.

Their also wouldn't be suffering IF people were to also follow the doctrine of abstinence. It isn't like people are only choosing to follow one doctrine issued by the Church.

quote:The inquisition in Spain was only a fraction of the violence committed in the name of Rome. For example: Whole nations were wiped out in America and their history burned by RC priests. Educate yourself, read a book called "The Secret History of The Jesuits"(Google it) and "Fox's Book Of Martyrs".

Examples of this?

I'm sure you're also familiar with France's use of the inquisition, and England's as well. How was Joan of Arc killed? Why was she killed? It sure as hell wasn't because she was a heretic.

I suggest you read up on Catholic doctrine before you go around spreading your misinformed opinions.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:



And transubstantiation bothers you how?

It's non-sense:

quote:the Church teaches infallibly that Christ is present through transubstantiation. As the Council of Trent says, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church repeats: “. . . by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”2 Trent pronounces an anathema against those who deny transubstantiation.3

It's nonsense yet non-believers have a curse pronounced upon them.

quote:the Roman teaching “. . . violates the human senses, where it asks us to believe that what tastes and looks like bread and wine, is really flesh and blood; and human reason, where it requires belief in the separation of a substance and its properties and in the presence of a material body in several places at the same time, both of which are contrary to reason.”Louis Berkhof

The RC's are continuing to teach error, things that are "contrary to reason". Evidence the system has not learned or changed from the days it persecuted those like Galileo for exposing their ignorance. It may seem confronting to a catholic, but the fact is the RC church, and other religions teach people to disregard reason and believe nonsense.

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Can you point me to the doctrine where it says that the Pope is God on earth?

For the life of me I can't seem to find it?

By the way, do you hate Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and ALL other religions/spiritual beliefs as well? Because they're just as nonsensical as Catholicism.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Originally posted by Raw_Power:

Calling them dogs and scum is only going to cause more antagonism.

Who cares? There are no rights. There is no such thing as "good" or "evil." They're all subjective, they're all 'spooks', they're all in your head. There's no right to life, there's no right to anything, nothing is "right" or "wrong."

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

So I used to think, but there is evil, and there is good.

What is evil? Evil is hate, sadism, violence, etc.

Good is love, acceptance, truth, beauty, etc.

Nihilism only takes you so far, it's more of a stepping stone than a permanent place.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

What is evil? Evil is hate, sadism, violence, etc.

Go tell that to The Marquis De Sade.

And yes, I believe ethics are subjective, but I do also believe that they are meaningful since they have a significant affect on our everyday lives.

To the guy who said something like "I like to see you say that when a muslim is trying to chop your head off." Just because the Muslim sees it as good, and I realise this, doesn't mean I won't fight for survival as any sane man would.

quote:

Go tell that to The Marquis De Sade.



Yes, obviously he thought that stuff was "good", evil at it's core is about deception. Lucifer is the king of lies, is he not?

If morality is truly subjective, then there is no morality. Moral relativism is nothing more than moral nihilism, while not always a bad thing, is never a "good" thing, if you catch my drift.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

Yes, obviously he thought that stuff was "good", evil at it's core is about deception. Lucifer is the king of lies, is he not?

If morality is truly subjective, then there is no morality. Moral relativism is nothing more than moral nihilism, while not always a bad thing, is never a "good" thing, if you catch my drift.

Oh, sorry, I forgot I was talking to a Christian.

Although morals are not objective and come from within us, they are steal important in that they affect everyday life. And all I'm saying is that maybe things would be better if we realise this, and realise that people aren't objectively evil, but just hold different values to us.

For those of you wondering, here are my complete views on ethics:

I think that ethics are subjective; that they come not from outside of us and above us, but come from within us; created by us and for us. This does not, however, render ethics meaningless, as some seem to think, for they have a significant affect on our everyday living.

I think that this is important to realise. And by ‘this’ I mean ethics being subjective and significant. For then we realise that we do not serve them, but that they serve us; that they are not set in stone, and that therefore, if they are arbitrary or no longer to our pleasing, we can simply do away with them without fear.

* * * *

The only time the individual is ethically wrong in the eyes of said individual is when he does something that he himself holds ethically wrong. Through the eyes of said individual, he may see himself as a saint, while the other-individual may see the individual as a devil. Therefore, all battles between separate cultures (and by culture I mean an individual person or government) are not battles of good vs. evil, but battles of person vs. person, whether it be for land or revenge or whatever; unless, however, the individual is attacking the other-individual for a reason he himself holds as ethically-wrong.

* * * *

If ethics are subjective, and no one is objectively wrong or right, what, then, gives you the right to punish others for doing acts you yourself see as ethically wrong? Why, nothing but your might! Your power! Your dominion and your sovereign!

Whoever has dominion holds the ‘objective’ ethics. And whoever holds the ‘objective ethics’ holds the power to punish! Therefore, it is always the mob or the government whom hold the ‘objective’ ethics.

The individual alone seldom holds the ‘objective’ ethics; rare examples are him being a single parent or a prince in a principality. The group makes sure of this for their own ‘safety’. Why do you think that vigilantism, the act of taking the law into ones own hands, is illegal in so many countries?

If you, the individual, view your subjective ethics as good, which you obviously most likely will, then you must use power of force and or persuasion to have your subjective ethics become ‘objective’ ethics and hold sovereign over the all.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

Yes, obviously he thought that stuff was "good", evil at it's core is about deception. Lucifer is the king of lies, is he not?

If morality is truly subjective, then there is no morality. Moral relativism is nothing more than moral nihilism, while not always a bad thing, is never a "good" thing, if you catch my drift.

Oh, sorry, I forgot I was talking to a Christian.

Although morals are not objective and come from within us, they are steal important in that they affect everyday life. And all I'm saying is that maybe things would be better if we realise this, and realise that people aren't objectively evil, but just hold different values to us.

I haven't always been a Christian, so don't pull that shit with me. I've only been a Christian before a month, before that I was a nihilist and an atheist since I was 12.

Also, it's "still", not "steal".

I never said people were evil, they can't be, however the things they do can be.

Don't act like I'm some retarded fucking Bible Belt God-Hates-Fag Christian. I argued against Christianity since you were giggling at girls in middle-school. While other kids talked about blowjobs, I was called a "satanist" because I didn't believe in God and supported the idea of the Big Bang(6th grade).

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

So I used to think, but there is evil, and there is good.

What is evil? Evil is hate, sadism, violence, etc.

Good is love, acceptance, truth, beauty, etc.

Nihilism only takes you so far, it's more of a stepping stone than a permanent place.

I don't disagree. I am not a moral relativist.

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

The RC's are continuing to teach error, things that are "contrary to reason". Evidence the system has not learned or changed from the days it persecuted those like Galileo for exposing their ignorance. It may seem confronting to a catholic, but the fact is the RC church, and other religions teach people to disregard reason and believe nonsense.

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Thank you for the explaination of what transubstantiation is. But i once trained for the clergy so i'm actually fairly well up on theology 101.

My question was 'why does it bother you that they believe it?' It's nonsense but it's harmless nonsense. You would be more justified in being annoyed they withhold the wine from the laity.

But if they choose to believe that the host some how is indeed JC's body then surely it's no skin off your nose?

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

Thank you for the explaination of what transubstantiation is. But i once trained for the clergy so i'm actually fairly well up on theology 101.

My question was 'why does it bother you that they believe it?' It's nonsense but it's harmless nonsense. You would be more justified in being annoyed they withhold the wine from the laity.

But if they choose to believe that the host some how is indeed JC's body then surely it's no skin off your nose?



At one time the pronouncing of an anathema meant great trouble for the unbeleiver, at the least ostracised from the life of the community and economy ar else tortured and murdered. Wars were fought, people died to free humanity from the grip of those who teach non-sense. In honour of their sacrifice and instructed by it, a reasoned future will no more allow the nonsense(of which transubstantiation is but a small part) to continue to infect the minds of humanity than humanity should allow the re-emergence of Nazi teachings.

Allowing oneself to believe nonsense allows dangerous concepts entrance to the mind, a little transubstantiation, a little penance, a few indulgences, throw in some purgatorial illusions and viola, papal infallibility condemns millions to the misery of AIDS, unwanted pregnancy, poverty and delusion.

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

BTW I don't 'hate' religion, or it's followers. I loathe the ignorance perpetuated by the non-sense, and the effects of that ignorance upon not only the followers but the rest of us as well.

quote:Originally posted by redzed:



Allowing oneself to believe nonsense allows dangerous concepts entrance to the mind, a little transubstantiation, a little penance, a few indulgences, throw in some purgatorial illusions and viola, papal infallibility condemns millions to the misery of AIDS, unwanted pregnancy, poverty and delusion.

That's such a bullshit argument, because if all the African Catholics were listening to the pope, then they wouldn't have extramarital sex(I realize that people can be born with AIDS even without ever having sex, but that wouldn't explain the high rate at which the AIDS virus is spreading).

Are you really naive enough to believe that all the Catholics in Africa listen to the pope when he says don't use contraceptives, but they completely ignore him when he advocates abstinence? Do you realize how non-sensical and illogical your argument is?

I'd still like to know where in the Catholic doctrine it says that the pope is God on earth, if you could be so kind.

quote:BTW I don't 'hate' religion, or it's followers. I loathe the ignorance perpetuated by the non-sense, and the effects of that ignorance upon not only the followers but the rest of us as well.

What ignorance? How is transubstantiation ignorance?

Don't even try to pull evolution/intelligent design, because Catholics can believe in evolution. So what ignorance does the Catholic Church promote, taking into account ALL their opinions(so you can't just look at their stance against birth control, you also have to look at their stance FOR abstinence)?

Please, enlighten us.

[This message has been edited by napoleon_complex (edited 09-29-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

What ignorance? How is transubstantiation ignorance?

How is it not ignorance?

Faith by definition implies ignorance; so faith in transubstantiation would already prove the point. Moreover, belief that transubstantiation exists when there is absolutely no valid evidence proving that it actually occurs, and in fact there are many scientific reasons to oppose such a ridiculous claim, is ignorance.

Want more ignorance? Out of the top of my head:

1. The Catholic Church has spread outrageous misinformation about condoms and their effects on preventing STDs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm

2. It has consistently supported the baseless, unscientific and ignorant belief in exorcism. Approving, and carrying out exorcisms on individuals, some of which have actually taken lives. The official "caster out of demons" is praised for the ludicrous claim that he has performed 30,000 exorcisms in his career (around 2-3 exorcisms a day for his entire career).

http://tinyurl.com/kc59t

3. It is now currently debating supporting the idea of Intelligent Design after first having supported evolution. More ignorance.

This isn't exclusive to the Catholic Church of course, but to ask the question "What ignorance?" as if there where no ignorance promoted in the Catholic Church, is idiotic to say the least.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-29-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Are you really naive enough to believe that all the Catholics in Africa listen to the pope when he says don't use contraceptives, but they completely ignore him when he advocates abstinence? Do you realize how non-sensical and illogical your argument is?

I'd still like to know where in the Catholic doctrine it says that the pope is God on earth, if you could be so kind.



The Pope is opposing a measure that recognises the reality of the situation not his fantasy world of non-sense. In reality sex outside of marriage is common amongst catholics just as in the wider community. In doing this he is opposing the work of those organisations that are trying to do something in real life to alleviate suffering. Do you not think his declaration has an effect upon what the cultural, economic and political authorities of African countries sanction, allow or encourage? Is the the Pope not influential enough that his attitudes inhibit the supply and/or use of lifesaving techniques?

Claims of infallibility are claims of omniscience, binding followers on pain of punishment is a claim of omnipotence, properties that are generally recognised as those of a God. Purporting to forgive sins by the authority of infallibility is usurping the position of divine justice.

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Examples of this?

I'm sure you're also familiar with France's use of the inquisition, and England's as well. How was Joan of Arc killed? Why was she killed? It sure as hell wasn't because she was a heretic.

I suggest you read up on Catholic doctrine before you go around spreading your misinformed opinions.

This is either a red herring or you have heard a different history or, perhaps you've simply missed my point. Despite the political intrigues surrounding Joan of Arc's death, the authorisation for that death was via a non-sense involving wearing men's clothing and witchcraft by which the RC priests gained the excuse needed to authorise her execution.

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

The Pope is opposing a measure that recognises the reality of the situation not his fantasy world of non-sense. In reality sex outside of marriage is common amongst catholics just as in the wider community. In doing this he is opposing the work of those organisations that are trying to do something in real life to alleviate suffering. Do you not think his declaration has an effect upon what the cultural, economic and political authorities of African countries sanction, allow or encourage? Is the the Pope not influential enough that his attitudes inhibit the supply and/or use of lifesaving techniques?

So you're telling me that Catholics in Africa follow very strictly the doctrine not to use condoms, but they COMPLETELY ignore the doctrine to practice abstinence? The fact is that it's completely ludicrous to think that Catholics are entirely faithful to one doctrine while completely ignoring another equally important one. It's naive on your part.

quote:Claims of infallibility are claims of omniscience, binding followers on pain of punishment is a claim of omnipotence, properties that are generally recognised as those of a God. Purporting to forgive sins by the authority of infallibility is usurping the position of divine justice.

Show me where the pope is said to be omniscient, especially in areas not regarding Catholic doctrine? Why are you pulling this stuff directly out of your ass and passing it off as fact?

Having infallibility with regards to doctrine(which only applies in specific cases if you want to get into the details of how it works), can hardly be construed as Catholics actually believing the pope to be divine and worshipping him, which is essentially what you're alleging.

Either provide some links to Catholic doctrine or for the love of God admit you don't know what you're talking about.



quote:This is either a red herring or you have heard a different history or, perhaps you've simply missed my point. Despite the political intrigues surrounding Joan of Arc's death, the authorisation for that death was via a non-sense involving wearing men's clothing and witchcraft by which the RC priests gained the excuse needed to authorise her execution.

Wrong, her death happened because the English accused her of being a witch and they forced the clergy's hand. The inquisition was just another court during the middle ages. That doesn't escuse it's use, because there is no denying that it was horrible, but it wasn't ENTIRELY a Church practice like you make it out to be.

quote:This isn't exclusive to the Catholic Church of course, but to ask the question "What ignorance?" as if there where no ignorance promoted in the Catholic Church, is idiotic to say the least.

I never said that the Church was perfect, but even then, what you're alleging is pretty tame stuff.

Can I get a link on the evolution point though? I'd be interested in seeing that.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I never said that the Church was perfect, but even then, what you're alleging is pretty tame stuff.



You did, however, imply that there was no ignorance promoted, or at the very least you didn't know of any ignorance promoted. Ignorance is promoted, and belief in transubstantiation (i.e. cannibalism when the complete ritual considered as a whole) is definitely ignorance.

Moreover, it is extremely disturbing that you see the promotion of ignorance when it comes to the efficacy of condoms (a life saving tool), which could then lead to misuse of condoms (a life threatening decision) as "pretty tame stuff".

Contrary to your beliefs many people do listen to the Church when it comes to condoms and while also deciding to have sex. Here's a transcript from a Documentary created by the BBC. In it there is an example of a woman who decided to have sex with her husband knowing perfectly well that he had AIDS and refused to use a condom because she believed she would go to hell as it is a sin according to the Church. As if that wasn't appalling and immoral enough, the documentary also indicates that there may be a movement of "praising" these people (those who contract AIDS when having sex with their spouse without the use of condoms) as "martyrs" for the Catholic Church.

http://tinyurl.com/n3dw8

Tame indeed!

quote:

Can I get a link on the evolution point though? I'd be interested in seeing that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1859762,00.html

Reply to napoleon_complex:



Is there any point? You are obviously an apologist and, no matter what the context, you twist words to your own purpose. Obviously in the context of doctrinal statements where the beliefs of the church in regards to matters of life and death are decided on the word of a man, be it Pope or priest, that person is usurping a position of omniscience. By proclaiming a teaching infallible that is a demonstration of claimed omniscience in that case. It does not need to be stated, it is inherent in making the claim to having infallible knowledge on those doctrines which after all are held to be the necessary requirements for life now and hereafter. Whether you say they apply only to catholics or not, the teaching of the Rc church is that if one does not hold to their teachings one is destined for damnation.

The implication of course is that the individual cannot be 'saved' apart from the church and it's rites. You can't pick and choose, bluster and insult, in an effort to detract from the number of non-sensical doctrines taught and confirmed by papal infallibility. Choosing to attack various parts of my posts and disregarding other pertinent points, such as the need to seek absolution thru a priest, in effect placing the priest in Gods' place. Why call them Father when the New Testament specifically warns against that? How can you dismiss the nonsense of transubstantiation as a trifle? Is that not a doctrine confirmed by papal decree as infallible?

I understand it is a challenge to have your faith questioned, and that's exactly all I am doing. If i am wrong fair enough, correct me, but do try to be civilised about it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) In the case of Joan of Arc, the history I have read is clear that the church was instrumental in her death. For me it is the nonsense taught by the church, like witchcraft in Joan of Arc's case, that is the problem. The nonsense promoted by the RC church, and accepted because of that authority by the general populace, was used by the unscrupulous for nefarious ends. Non-sense calls the whole teaching of the RC's into question, and makes it impossible to have a 'reasonable' understanding, meaning that one would need to surrender one's reason and bow to the 'superior' knowledge of the priests even though one could make no sense of it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

[This message has been edited by redzed (edited 09-30-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Reply to napoleon_complex:



Is there any point? You are obviously an apologist and, no matter what the context, you twist words to your own purpose. Obviously in the context of doctrinal statements where the beliefs of the church in regards to matters of life and death are decided on the word of a man, be it Pope or priest, that person is usurping a position of omniscience. By proclaiming a teaching infallible that is a demonstration of claimed omniscience in that case. It does not need to be stated, it is inherent in making the claim to having infallible knowledge on those doctrines which after all are held to be the necessary requirements for life now and hereafter. Whether you say they apply only to catholics or not, the teaching of the Rc church is that if one does not hold to their teachings one is destined for damnation.

I'm sorry, but you have to be a complete idiot if you think that limited omniscience in specific cases equals revered deity.

Just admit you were wrong when you said the pope is God on earth. It's ok to be wrong.

You're also wrong on that last part. You don't NEED to be a Catholic to go to heaven. You need to believe in God and do good works. You have to recognize good and revere God(not the pope). However, if you have a link to doctrine refuting this, then feel free to post it.

quote:The implication of course is that the individual cannot be 'saved' apart from the church and it's rites. You can't pick and choose, bluster and insult, in an effort to detract from the number of non-sensical doctrines taught and confirmed by papal infallibility. Choosing to attack various parts of my posts and disregarding other pertinent points, such as the need to seek absolution thru a priest, in effect placing the priest in Gods' place. Why call them Father when the New Testament specifically warns against that? How can you dismiss the nonsense of transubstantiation as a trifle? Is that not a doctrine confirmed by papal decree as infallible?

I don't care if you dismiss transubstantiation. I don't believe in transubstantiation. I just asked if you think Hinduism and Buddhism and Jainism and Judaism are just as non-sensical in your eyes, lest you look like an anti-catholic bigot.

Transubstantiation has it's roots in the bible and it was only affirmed dogmatically. Transubstantiation wasn't decreed as something new. It goes back to Greece.

quote:I understand it is a challenge to have your faith questioned, and that's exactly all I am doing. If i am wrong fair enough, correct me, but do try to be civilised about it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) In the case of Joan of Arc, the history I have read is clear that the church was instrumental in her death. For me it is the nonsense taught by the church, like witchcraft in Joan of Arc's case, that is the problem. The nonsense promoted by the RC church, and accepted because of that authority by the general populace, was used by the unscrupulous for nefarious ends. Non-sense calls the whole teaching of the RC's into question, and makes it impossible to have a 'reasonable' understanding, meaning that one would need to surrender one's reason and bow to the 'superior' knowledge of the priests even though one could make no sense of it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

If you had actually read history books, then you'd know that Joan of Arc was accused of witchcraft by........you guessed it...THE ENGLISH!

Her death was purely a political one. The English, for all intensive purposes, forced the Church to execute her because she was beating them on the battlefield. They had to do it that way because it wouldn't be proper of them to execute a woman militarily.

I guess I just have serious question about how YOU can question the teachings of the Church when it appears that you have no real knowledge about them other than stuff you may have heard from people who don't like Catholics. Just to clear up any misunderstanding, Catholics DON'T believe the pope is God, they DON'T think Mary is God, they DON'T think saints are God, nor do they believe in creationism.

Thanks for the link Rust. I still don't think anything will change other than the Church more actively proposing God's involvement in evolution with regards to creation of the universe.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

So you're telling me that Catholics in Africa follow very strictly the doctrine not to use condoms, but they COMPLETELY ignore the doctrine to practice abstinence? The fact is that it's completely ludicrous to think that Catholics are entirely faithful to one doctrine while completely ignoring another equally important one. It's naive on your part.

I think what's naive is assuming that those doctrines are equally easy to follow. It's much easier to not wear a condom than abstain from premarital sex. By even calling them equally important makes it all the easier to uphold the easy one while ignoring the hard.

Religious views once again hold people to irrational standards that only lead to suffering.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

Thank you for the explaination of what transubstantiation is. But i once trained for the clergy so i'm actually fairly well up on theology 101.

My question was 'why does it bother you that they believe it?' It's nonsense but it's harmless nonsense. You would be more justified in being annoyed they withhold the wine from the laity.

But if they choose to believe that the host some how is indeed JC's body then surely it's no skin off your nose?



Because it teaches people to believe in something just because they say its true and not because there is a good reason to believe it. Stupidity and irrationality (both contagious) bother many of us.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:



Thanks for the link Rust. I still don't think anything will change other than the Church more actively proposing God's involvement in evolution with regards to creation of the universe.

I'm glad you agree that the Church's position on contraception is ignorant, disgusting and appalling.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

Stupidity and irrationality (both contagious) bother many of us.

Obviously not so much if you post on totse. :P

[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 09-30-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I'm glad you agree that the Church's position on contraception is ignorant, disgusting and appalling.

Sure thing!

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:I think what's naive is assuming that those doctrines are equally easy to follow. It's much easier to not wear a condom than abstain from premarital sex. By even calling them equally important makes it all the easier to uphold the easy one while ignoring the hard.

Religious views once again hold people to irrational standards that only lead to suffering.

So you honestly think that the AIDS epidemic is happening(in part at least) because African Catholics are dutifully following one Catholic doctrine while completely ignoring the other?

Tell me, which do you think is more likely: African Catholics just don't care what the Vatican thinks, or that they're faithfully following just one, and only one doctrine of the Church? You appear to be a man of reason, so tell me which option is more reasonable.

It's more reasonable to say that both are happening, as the links I gave show. Many people are ignoring the call for abstinence while also having sex without condoms. That is a fact.

"Three out of the eight women groups cited religious reasons as factors

inhibiting condom use."



"Future prospects of condom use within marriage are further complicated

by concerns by religious groups who contend that condoms symbolise

complacency, immorality and moral decadence and their use is committing

a mortal sin. To this, add the minor practical problems of condom rupture,

being slippery, not pleasurable and difficulties of disposal, and the chances

of married couples adopting condom use look rather bleak, at least in the

context of the communities in this study."

http://www.uaps.org/journal/journal18v1/condom.pdf

Both are happening. To claim otherwise, that would be naive.

They dont get much education in AIDs ridden africa. Thus, the catholic priests have an especially significant influence. The catholic priests do not provide objective information.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:



I guess I just have serious question about how YOU can question the teachings of the Church when it appears that you have no real knowledge about them other than stuff you may have heard from people who don't like Catholics. Just to clear up any misunderstanding, Catholics DON'T believe the pope is God, they DON'T think Mary is God, they DON'T think saints are God, nor do they believe in creationism.



There's always two sides to a story, history according to the conquerors and the history of the oppressed. Perhaps a protestant education gives one a view from the place of the oppressed? I have studied the full course on Roman Catholicism as provided by their organisation in this country. I completed every module and saw mostly 'good'. It is true to me that the lay catholics are a people as fine as any other. However upon a couple of doctrines regarding non-sense(IMHO) of miracles and relics I found as is the case with all the other religions I have considered, elements that do not agree with reason. Like Thomas Paine I too claim the same rights as 'doubting Thomas', I believe that to be a precedent and it is the right of every human to be fully satisfied in their own mind.

Is their any dispute regarding the wars conducted by the Papacy against those who disagreed with the doctrines pronounced infallible? Is there any dispute that it was by force of arms humanity won their freedoms from the tyranny of papal infallibility? Is that physical reality the reason the RC's no longer use it? What other than a usurper/conman teachs humanity they are born sinners and condemned to an eternal suffering unless they agree to it's infallible word and 'pay' homage?

Born a sinner? Is this a control system that uses fear to blind? Why is it one needs an intercessor between oneself and God? Non-sense. How can it be one cannot simply approach God and ask for correction? Why do I need the church and it's rites to receive forgiveness? How is it any different to claim to be the instrument of forgiveness or claim to be God?



Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

So you honestly think that the AIDS epidemic is happening(in part at least) because African Catholics are dutifully following one Catholic doctrine while completely ignoring the other?

Tell me, which do you think is more likely: African Catholics just don't care what the Vatican thinks, or that they're faithfully following just one, and only one doctrine of the Church? You appear to be a man of reason, so tell me which option is more reasonable.

If African Catholics didn't care what the Vatican says, they WOULD use condoms. So, taking reality into consideration, the second option is more reasonable. You didn't answer me on which doctrine is easiest to follow. Are you arguing that all African Catholics are of strong faith and should be able to follow both doctrines as easily?

Maybe I get you wrong. Is your point that african catholics are both faithless and stupid? That could be the case, but the church only supports disinformation which leads to stupidity which leads to deaths.

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

There's always two sides to a story, history according to the conquerors and the history of the oppressed. Perhaps a protestant education gives one a view from the place of the oppressed? I have studied the full course on Roman Catholicism as provided by their organisation in this country. I completed every module and saw mostly 'good'. It is true to me that the lay catholics are a people as fine as any other. However upon a couple of doctrines regarding non-sense(IMHO) of miracles and relics I found as is the case with all the other religions I have considered, elements that do not agree with reason. Like Thomas Paine I too claim the same rights as 'doubting Thomas', I believe that to be a precedent and it is the right of every human to be fully satisfied in their own mind.

Is their any dispute regarding the wars conducted by the Papacy against those who disagreed with the doctrines pronounced infallible? Is there any dispute that it was by force of arms humanity won their freedoms from the tyranny of papal infallibility? Is that physical reality the reason the RC's no longer use it? What other than a usurper/conman teachs humanity they are born sinners and condemned to an eternal suffering unless they agree to it's infallible word and 'pay' homage?

Born a sinner? Is this a control system that uses fear to blind? Why is it one needs an intercessor between oneself and God? Non-sense. How can it be one cannot simply approach God and ask for correction? Why do I need the church and it's rites to receive forgiveness? How is it any different to claim to be the instrument of forgiveness or claim to be God?

You don't. It whether you believe in it or not. Do you really think most Catholics give a shit whether you believe in their religion or not? No. They don't care, I don't care, no one cares. It's just that you appear to have ZERO understanding of the religion, let alone the background and history of why they believe what they believe, coupled with the fact that you have some pretty skewed views of even what Catholics believe, such as how they view the pope(I'd still like you to provide doctrine showing Catholics believe the pope to be God on earth).

I have no issues if people think Catholicism makes no sense, just as long as they qualify their beliefs, which I don't think you've done.

quote:If African Catholics didn't care what the Vatican says, they WOULD use condoms. So, taking reality into consideration, the second option is more reasonable. You didn't answer me on which doctrine is easiest to follow. Are you arguing that all African Catholics are of strong faith and should be able to follow both doctrines as easily?

Maybe I get you wrong. Is your point that african catholics are both faithless and stupid? That could be the case, but the church only supports disinformation which leads to stupidity which leads to deaths.

I'm saying that they're not following anything the Church is saying. They're not using condoms not because of the Church(if that was the case, then most of the non-Catholic Africans would be using condoms, which isn't the case), but because of how backwards their culture is. Traditional beliefs are just as important there as Christianity is, and their traditional beliefs frown upon condoms as well. Not to mention, most Africans simply don't like using condoms, as evidenced by the link above(where religion is only a minor reason for lack of condom usage).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Who thinks what the Pope said was offensive ? Of those, who thinks that whatever is to be found offensive in his speech warrants the kind of backlash Christians have received ? Should he apologize ?

quote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1875792,00.html

'A man with little sympathy for other faiths'

Pope Benedict is being portrayed as a naive, shy scholar who has accidentally antagonised two major world faiths in a matter of months. In fact he is a shrewd and ruthless operator, argues Madeleine Bunting - and he's dangerous.

.....

.. if his visit to Auschwitz disappointed many and failed to resolve outstanding resentments about the murky role of German Catholicism, this latest incident seems even worse. Quoting Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologos, he said: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." It was a gratuitous reawakening of the most entrenched and self-serving of western prejudices - that Muslims have a unique proclivity to violence, a claim that has no basis in history or in current world events (a fact that still eludes too many westerners). Even more bewildering is the fact that his choice of quotation from Manuel II Paleologos, the 14th-century Byzantine emperor, was so insulting of the Prophet. Even the most cursory knowledge of dialogue with Islam teaches - and as a Vatican Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI would have learned this long ago - that reverence for the Prophet is a non-negotiable. What unites all Muslims is a passionate devotion and commitment to protecting the honour of Muhammad. Given the scale of the offence, the carefully worded apology, actually, gives little ground; he recognises that Muslims have been offended and that he was only quoting, but there is no regret at using such an inappropriate comment or the deep historic resonances it stirs up.

DS this is the problem with what the Pope said, and with those like yourself who seem to support nonsense - "he's dangerous" - and you do not recognise it!

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I'm saying that they're not following anything the Church is saying. They're not using condoms not because of the Church(if that was the case, then most of the non-Catholic Africans would be using condoms, which isn't the case), but because of how backwards their culture is. Traditional beliefs are just as important there as Christianity is, and their traditional beliefs frown upon condoms as well. Not to mention, most Africans simply don't like using condoms, as evidenced by the link above(where religion is only a minor reason for lack of condom usage).

3 out of 8 (i.e. 37+% ) is not a "minor" reason. It is a substantial reason as the study makes clear. A substantial amount of people are refusing to use condoms for religious reasons. So you are wrong as has been demonstrated before in this thread when you say "They're not using condoms not because of the Church..., but because of how backwards their culture is".

quote:what sense is there in such a contest? If the most senior figure in Christendom effectively takes Bin Laden's bait and says that, yes, this is a war of religions, ours against yours, how can this end? Such a war cannot be quieted by the usual means of diplomacy or compromise. There can be no happy medium in matters of core belief: Muslims cannot meet Christians halfway on their belief that God spoke to Muhammad, just as Christians cannot compromise on Jesus's status as the son of God.

Most religious leaders have long recognised that, and agreed to tiptoe politely around each other, offering a warm, soapy bath of rhetoric about "shared values" and "interfaith dialogue". Of course they have known that, if pushed, they would be obliged to say their own faiths are better than the others, but they have avoided doing so. Now this Pope has broken that compact - and who knows what havoc he has unleashed. http: //www.guar dian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1876425,00.html (http: //www.guar dian.co.uk /religion/ Story/0,,1 876425,00. html)

Digital Saviour, are you just going to abandon this thread without resolving the issues you have raised? Is there a connection between your defence of what you term orthodox christianity and your recent crisis of faith?

There's very little in life as disturbing as discovering one is wrong(speaking from personal experience http://www.totse.com/bbs/redface.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/redface.gif)) ), especially in regard to things personal and intimate that one has passionately defended, except maybe - openly admitting it! Realising one has been duped can bring on a form of grieving characterised by denial, and expressed thru anger generally leading to apathy, if one is not able to reach acceptance and have the courage to admit it and move on.

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



[This message has been edited by redzed (edited 10-03-2006).]