New pope..

[Primal Instinct]

Originally posted by Jordan
fact of the day: the pope went to african villages that were plagued with aids and told them not to use condoms because the only acceptable catholic form of contraception is abstinence... many consider him responsible for genocide because of this

This is because just about every organized religion seeks to propogate its membership so that it eventually overtakes all other religions- to become THE religion. Birth control (especially in third world nations) is preached against by the Roman Catholic Church in particular to gain a foothold in those regions and further the goals (and material possessions & wealth) of the church. More children = more catholics, period. As for genocide, the church would never take such responsibility for such matters. To avoid the perception of accountability their favorite disclaimer is that whatever happens is "God's Will."


This pope is a definite hardliner with almost extreme christian fundamentalist attitudes towards the precepts of the church. Ratzinger (from Bavaria) actually was indoctrinated into the Hitler Youth movement as a child and later became an auxillary gunner in the German army He deserted the army at some point later. He was captured by the US and eventually set free where he reentered religious instruction.


Ratzinger wrote official dissertations and proclamations in the name of the RCC and spoke in public forums that all other religions (even other christian ones) that weren't Roman Catholic were false and wrong. Only the RC Church would grant salvation in heaven. He was the enforcer of the vatican and removed many priests and lay persons from the church for many reasons including ministering to homosexuals, advising parishoners on the use of artificial birth control means and many other philosophical reasons that he didn't agree with. John Paul II did not reign him in either. However, I think that the most noteworthy thing about this guy is that he was the iron fist in the velvet glove behind John Paul II and as the enforcer of church tenets and policy, his position in stature and purpose in the modern church was equivalent to the head of the Inquisition and led the exact same committee (I can't remember what the actual committee name is right now) that the Inquistion arose from a few centuries ago. A perfect hardass to fit the bill, it seems.


Depending on how long this guy lives, there will likely be a split in the American sect of the RCC at some point. The US clergy and congregation are considered much more liberal on social issues (alter girls, women in the priesthood, married priests, birth control, etc) and see a necessity for the church to have the flexibility to update their policies to keep in line more with modern times.

[Jordan]

creepy!

[imonboardtoo]

Geez, we know who the anti-religious establishment members are.

The RCC, like all other religions, has its flaws. We're all human, and I haven't seen perfection yet - not even on this board. However, if you look at $ spent to help the poor, sick, homeless, etc., you will find the RCC does way more than most. So, while I think this new pope sucks (and I AM a Catholic), I don't hate any religion or condemn its doctrine. It's working for some people at the bottom of the food chain or they wouldn't belong.

[Scrumhalf]

Originally posted by imonboardtoo
Geez, we know who the anti-religious establishment members are.

The RCC, like all other religions, has its flaws. We're all human, and I haven't seen perfection yet - not even on this board. However, if you look at $ spent to help the poor, sick, homeless, etc., you will find the RCC does way more than most. So, while I think this new pope sucks (and I AM a Catholic), I don't hate any religion or condemn its doctrine. It's working for some people at the bottom of the food chain or they wouldn't belong.

Like I said on another thread a few weeks ago, I have no issues with the philanthropic intentions of any organization, religious or otherwise. There needs to be more of that all around. However, I do take exception to the fact that with some organizations, the philanthropy is a front for proselytizing. If organizations can do philanthropy without strings attached, they will have my respect....

[Primal Instinct]

Originally posted by imonboardtoo
Geez, we know who the anti-religious establishment members are.

The RCC, like all other religions, has its flaws. We're all human, and I haven't seen perfection yet - not even on this board. However, if you look at $ spent to help the poor, sick, homeless, etc., you will find the RCC does way more than most. So, while I think this new pope sucks (and I AM a Catholic), I don't hate any religion or condemn its doctrine. It's working for some people at the bottom of the food chain or they wouldn't belong.

Do I come off as sounding anti-religious? I'm not against religion per se, I just find it uncomfortable at times to witness people using religion as a control mechanism over people. That is generally what "organized" religion does. It is the exclusionary process that disturbs me the most. In most organized religions, it is preached that only members who subscribe to that religion would receive eternal happiness whether it be in heaven with God or with Allah and 72 virgins. Aside from the obvious semantical differences, I find it hard to fathom that a buddhist monk who lived a devoted and clean life cannot get accepted into "heaven" because he hadn't subscribed to christianity's tenets. However, that is the teaching of the RCC, for one example. Other organized religions are not much different either.


Humans created religion- or at least interpreted it for their own purposes. When humans first started to live in groups and their lifespans slowly started to increase, they started to have time to consider things other than their immediate survival. This is the early periods when man developed cave art and tool making. They also (for the first time) started to consider their own mortality. This is most likely where the idea of a higher order or authority came into being. It may have been as simple as acts of nature (storms, earthquakes, floods) or even respect/fear of certain animal species but it probably grew from that. Rules of behavior necessary to the tribe's survival would be developed and enacted to maintain a survival of the species and religion fit the bill nicely. Without reward/punishment, there would be no incentive to follow such rules, thus putting the group as a whole at risk of harm. It was kind of like a primative law enforcement system, in a way. I feel that it's likely that organized religions were rooted in this manner and still serve the same general purpose today, although every place on this earth now has some form of law enforcement system that serves to protect the lives, rights and property of its own citizens while organized religion still holds the ideological carrot and the stick approach to personal behaviors.


There is nothing wrong with philantropic activities by a religious organization but we need to keep in mind that there are ALWAYS strings attached. There is no free lunch. Yes, the RC Church has done much humanitarian assistance in third world countries but they also expect to teach and convert those people to catholicism. Their goals are not wholly selfless in that sense. Religion can be a healthy thing. It provides hope and comfort to some in times of need. It is a shame when people are scammed by others who use religion as a personal platform to raise personal income levels, such as are common amongst televangelists. However, people do have freedom of choice and that is their own decision to support these scammers.


If religion makes people to relate to others in a positive way, feel better about theirselves or helps them cope with difficulties in their lives then that's great. It could also be said that churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc., are all merely physical buildings but true religiosity and prayer can take place anywhere and doesn't need great halls filled with art and riches to validate the ideology. I think that too many different sects of christianity (as well as other organized religions) place far too much emphasis on the physical and material things in this world than what true religious ideologies and spiritualism is really supposed to be about. If that makes me anti-religious, then so be it.


I was raised catholic and received a catholic elementary and high school school education, so I have some reasonable idea about RCC teachings and hypocritical nature at least. I have also studied some of the other organized religions prevalent at this time in our world. I have determined that I cannot fit into any of these systems, nor do I wish to. I consider myself an agnostic but still a spiritual person. I find it very interesting when people attack others ( I don't mean you, imonboardtoo) for questioning their religious ideologies. There is nothing wrong with this type of discussion, IMO.


My personal opinion is when people promote to others their religious philosophies and someone disagrees or questions them on it, those people get defensive and attack the ones who question their faith. I have to ask myself, what good is any religious ideology that cannot stand up to serious scrutiny? Is it even worth defending if you can't reasonably discuss it amongst people without just using the term "faith" as the catch-all for any unexplained deficiencies or flaws in logic? I'm not really putting it down but it just isn't for me. It really bothers me when people approach me and try to get me to accept Jesus or GOD into my heart in order to "save" my soul. That is where religion crosses the line for me. Practice whatever one wants to believe (as long as it's legal) and leave me alone. I don't need saving and I don't need to be "born again" either. I was born right the first time, lol.

[Jordan]

IMO~ it isnt religion that should be credited for charitable acts, but rather the good will of individuals; with or without religion good people would do good things and evil people would do evil things... but i think religion is one of the few practices that can make good people do evil things ~IMO

[hlcn8]

"He was the enforcer of the vatican and removed many priests and lay persons from the church for many reasons including ministering to homosexuals, advising parishoners on the use of artificial birth control means and many other philosophical reasons that he didn't agree with."

What i'd like to know is, where was he when priests were poking alter boys? Cardinal Law, who handled frequent reports of abuse by priests and simply re-directed them to different parishes instead was given the honorable position of saying mass during one of the 9 days of mourning. I don't think the RCC really cared about what happened, other than fearing going broke due to court settlements, and has since simply shrugged it off.

ranting aside; how do you get a nun pregnant?











dress her up as an alter boy!

[Shibby]

Originally posted by Primal Instinct
Do I come off as sounding anti-religious? I'm not against religion per se, I just find it uncomfortable at times to witness people using religion as a control mechanism over people. That is generally what "organized" religion does. It is the exclusionary process that disturbs me the most. In most organized religions, it is preached that only members who subscribe to that religion would receive eternal happiness whether it be in heaven with God or with Allah and 72 virgins. Aside from the obvious semantical differences, I find it hard to fathom that a buddhist monk who lived a devoted and clean life cannot get accepted into "heaven" because he hadn't subscribed to christianity's tenets. However, that is the teaching of the RCC, for one example. Other organized religions are not much different either.


Humans created religion- or at least interpreted it for their own purposes. When humans first started to live in groups and their lifespans slowly started to increase, they started to have time to consider things other than their immediate survival. This is the early periods when man developed cave art and tool making. They also (for the first time) started to consider their own mortality. This is most likely where the idea of a higher order or authority came into being. It may have been as simple as acts of nature (storms, earthquakes, floods) or even respect/fear of certain animal species but it probably grew from that. Rules of behavior necessary to the tribe's survival would be developed and enacted to maintain a survival of the species and religion fit the bill nicely. Without reward/punishment, there would be no incentive to follow such rules, thus putting the group as a whole at risk of harm. It was kind of like a primative law enforcement system, in a way. I feel that it's likely that organized religions were rooted in this manner and still serve the same general purpose today, although every place on this earth now has some form of law enforcement system that serves to protect the lives, rights and property of its own citizens while organized religion still holds the ideological carrot and the stick approach to personal behaviors.


There is nothing wrong with philantropic activities by a religious organization but we need to keep in mind that there are ALWAYS strings attached. There is no free lunch. Yes, the RC Church has done much humanitarian assistance in third world countries but they also expect to teach and convert those people to catholicism. Their goals are not wholly selfless in that sense. Religion can be a healthy thing. It provides hope and comfort to some in times of need. It is a shame when people are scammed by others who use religion as a personal platform to raise personal income levels, such as are common amongst televangelists. However, people do have freedom of choice and that is their own decision to support these scammers.


If religion makes people to relate to others in a positive way, feel better about theirselves or helps them cope with difficulties in their lives then that's great. It could also be said that churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc., are all merely physical buildings but true religiosity and prayer can take place anywhere and doesn't need great halls filled with art and riches to validate the ideology. I think that too many different sects of christianity (as well as other organized religions) place far too much emphasis on the physical and material things in this world than what true religious ideologies and spiritualism is really supposed to be about. If that makes me anti-religious, then so be it.


I was raised catholic and received a catholic elementary and high school school education, so I have some reasonable idea about RCC teachings and hypocritical nature at least. I have also studied some of the other organized religions prevalent at this time in our world. I have determined that I cannot fit into any of these systems, nor do I wish to. I consider myself an agnostic but still a spiritual person. I find it very interesting when people attack others ( I don't mean you, imonboardtoo) for questioning their religious ideologies. There is nothing wrong with this type of discussion, IMO.


My personal opinion is when people promote to others their religious philosophies and someone disagrees or questions them on it, those people get defensive and attack the ones who question their faith. I have to ask myself, what good is any religious ideology that cannot stand up to serious scrutiny? Is it even worth defending if you can't reasonably discuss it amongst people without just using the term "faith" as the catch-all for any unexplained deficiencies or flaws in logic? I'm not really putting it down but it just isn't for me. It really bothers me when people approach me and try to get me to accept Jesus or GOD into my heart in order to "save" my soul. That is where religion crosses the line for me. Practice whatever one wants to believe (as long as it's legal) and leave me alone. I don't need saving and I don't need to be "born again" either. I was born right the first time, lol.

That has to be one of the best things I have ever read. I have alot of the same feelings and you express them very well.

[Jordan]

:agree: :agree: :agree:
i just finished writing a long essay for my poli sci program about how religion and nationalism keep the world in a state of perpetual violence. its easy to say that 'if religion is kept to a personal level it's fine', but will that ever happen? of course not

[Jordan]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4425603.stm
read the first paragraph... im in udder disbelief... a bunch of fucking idiots ruin this girls life in order to conform to their beliefs

[shortz]

Originally posted by Jordan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4425603.stm
read the first paragraph... im in udder disbelief... a bunch of fucking idiots ruin this girls life in order to conform to their beliefs

That's bullshit. If someone will not perform a job because of their religios beliefs, then they need to find a new profession. No one forced these people to become pharmicists, they did that on their own. They should be terminated for refusing to do their job.

[Shibby]

If I owned a Pharmacy and someone I hired decided to start making there own policies, they would be gone quick. If I saw what was happening to that woman I would have snatched that fucker by the neck. Then tell him it is against my beliefs to let stupid fucks like you dictate someones life and legal rights because of there fucking "beliefs".

[imonboardtoo]

My "beliefs" end where the next guy's begin. I can talk and express myself to others, but any more than that is intrusive. Religious beliefs, political ideologies, likes/dislikes, whatever...

Live and let live.

[realconan]

Originally posted by Shibby
If I owned a Pharmacy and someone I hired decided to start making there own policies, they would be gone quick. If I saw what was happening to that woman I would have snatched that fucker by the neck. Then tell him it is against my beliefs to let stupid fucks like you dictate someones life and legal rights because of there fucking "beliefs".

Aren't you doing the same thing? I agree that the guy should find another job if he doesn't feel he can perform it entirely, but you're no different than he is. You claim that he ruined her life? That's nonsense. She ruined her own life when she decided to be stupid and sleep around. You can't blame him because he refused to help her get out of the consequences of what she did. Since when is it OK to just do whatever you want and then crap on the people who won't allow you to just skip out on taking responsibility for it? You can scoff at his beliefs all you want, but he does have a right to them. You people all fly off the handle and start making outrageous comments like the quote above just because someone has convictions about right and wrong. Come on now. If he had reacted to her the way you're reacting to him, all hell would break loose. At least he has the guts to stick to what he believes. He wasn't "dictating" her life, let's be rational here.

[Shibby]

Originally posted by realconan
Aren't you doing the same thing? I agree that the guy should find another job if he doesn't feel he can perform it entirely, but you're no different than he is. You claim that he ruined her life? That's nonsense. She ruined her own life when she decided to be stupid and sleep around. You can't blame him because he refused to help her get out of the consequences of what she did. Since when is it OK to just do whatever you want and then crap on the people who won't allow you to just skip out on taking responsibility for it? You can scoff at his beliefs all you want, but he does have a right to them. You people all fly off the handle and start making outrageous comments like the quote above just because someone has convictions about right and wrong. Come on now. If he had reacted to her the way you're reacting to him, all hell would break loose. At least he has the guts to stick to what he believes. He wasn't "dictating" her life, let's be rational here.

He was dictaing her life in choosing what laws she is or isn't allowed to follow. He's not a judge. You atomatically think that because some woman needs a morning after pill that she is some kind of slut. There could be so many reasons that she needs it. And then you go and make a chauvinistic statement, that only men can have casual sex. I think we know who is thinking narrow minded here. This lady needed help sticking up for her legal rights. I would be willing to help her. You would rather sit back and watch her suffer more than she has too.