Pope now resigns!

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by R1D2, Feb 11, 2013.

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875


    I said I disagreed with many of the church's teachings. What, people cannot disagree without being hateful?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. R1D2 many leagues under the sea. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,300
    It seems only some of the time.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    That is an interesting point. For me the line is crossed when one side employs fanaticism, deceit and lies, that is where the amiability ends.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I thought the Catholics were famous for their excellent schools, universities and libraries, and that they stood out as the first Christian church to accept teachings of science such as evolution. I would be surprised if the average believer was not aware of their history.

    I think a passport is just about all you need.

    Have you looked for their materials online? They have some excellent scholarly works open for your review, particularly if you're willing to look past the religious slant.

    I think that's probably incorrect. In Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, he inventories the heretical books at the Library of Alexandria. I don't think the Roman Church had any designs on them or they would have taken them sometime between the eras of Cleopatra and Eusebius.

    That's way off the mark. You seem to be confusing the Protestant meaning of the word "catholic" from the era of the Reformation, with the meaning during the era of the Council of Nicaea. Until you get this straight, you can't begin to get the facts about the Byzantine era straight. Rome was still ancient when the term katholikos was coined, and the seat of the church was already established there. It was Constantine who attempted to shake things up, and the result was the schism into the eastern and western churches. Besides, Constantine became a Catholic himself, and he was also known for burning heretical books. The Catholics did not make war on him; he embraced them and protected them with the Edict of Milan, effectively establishing their religious freedom. And he chose Constantinople as his capitol; Rome wasn't taken from him. It was Constantine who convened the first Council at Nicaea, and this would be the forum for declaring the central Church in Rome as the "universal" (Katholicos) church, meaning it was the core of Christian orthodoxy which the heretical Christian sects rebelled against. It was a definition. And Constantine was practically its sponsor.

    "Mean generals"? Are you sure you're not talking about the Spanish conquistadores? Are you aware that there were quite a few military men and political laymen who took the Vatican by force, and then appointed themselves popes? I think you would need to distinguish between these pretenders to the papacy and the actual popes who were elected before you can try to characterize any pope as a military man.

    By power and strength you apparently mean the Holy Roman Empire, which preceded the Reformation. So the term "catholic" makes no sense in this context, other than as a way of distinguishing it as the orthodox church of the West. You would have to say that Christians murdered their way to power and strength, since there were not yet any Protestants. And I doubt you are referring to the Coptic, Syriac, Greek, Russian or Ethiopian churches. (I think the Spanish Inquisition stands out for Catholic atrocities in the Spanish Empire, while the Protestants are better known for burning people at the stake.)

    I think the taking or burning of books was limited, and probably no more common among Catholics than Protestants. If you read Eusebius, you will note that the books they were collecting in the library at Alexandria were anything that might be considered historical regardless of how offensive it was to him. I think you're jumping to conclusions and making gross generalizations that probably have no basis in history.

    If they were lost, then why are you assuming what they contain?

    If they were destroyed then you can't possibly know what was in them. Considering what has been preserved, and the affinity that scholars had for books, you're going way out on a limb believing that any significant book burning was done by any one particular sect. Also, considering the enormous span of history involved, you've made a gross error in thinking that a particular point of view (towards books) lasted throughout the millenia in just one of the many churches that defined Christianity over the ages.

    You mean you hate catholicism. That much is clear. Does that mean you're OK with the non-Roman catholic and orthodox churches and all the Protestant denominations as well? Because they all evolved from a common root. And that root is the one that first called itself catholic when it recognized that it was the "universal" christian church--which is what katholikos means. Greek was still the principal language of Christianity, and the Library at Alexandria was teeming with "foul and vile works by heretics". I really have no idea how many book burnings (if any) were ever sanctioned by any prelate of any of the major Christian churches. I guess that's a question for historians. But I think you'd be surprised if you tried to research your claims from a historical standpoint. So much of what you've said goes against history that you can only stand to gain by trying to learn the facts.
     
  8. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Hey, if that is God's word, who are we to judge him?
     
  9. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Of course they can. They can also disagree without kissing the collective asses of a bunch of people who have done a great deal of harm to the world. I'm just saying, it's odd to say "I disagree with Charles Manson's actions, but he really is an extremely clever guy with a great knack for self-tattooing. I really respect his tremendous neck-beard."
     
  10. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Is that a serious question?
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Well I didn’t say anything about Charles Manson. You cannot reasonably draw a connection between Charles Manson and the modern Catholic Church and Pope Benedict.
     
  12. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Obviously not, because God is above questioning...
     
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,877
    A man who leads a cult and claims to be Jesus Christ is only a hair's breadth different from a man who leads a religion and who claims to be the representative of God on earth.
     
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    For starters, the Catholic Church is not a cult. Nor did Pope Benedict order the murder of anyone as Manson did. Last I checked the Pope wasn’t hosting orgies in the Vatican. And last I checked Manson didn’t operate a multinational organization that ran charities in virtually every nation, feeding the poor, educating the poor, providing housing and medical care for the poor. Nor do I recall Manson reaching out to other religions to find common ground. So while I disagree with the many of the Church’s policies, that doesn’t mean the Church is evil or that the Pope is a man of ill will. I don’t believe that for an instant.
     
  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,877
    It's just as delusional for Manson to think he's Jesus Christ as for the Pope to think he's God's mouthpiece on earth. As for the murdering? History records a long line of Popes issuing edicts mandating the killing and persecution of people for no other reason than their being heretics or pagans. Popes nowadays can't do this see because we have powerful secular democracies protecting the rights of non-Catholics. Put the Pope back in charge of world affairs again and watch how fast the blood starts flowing again. This pope had a real problem with gay people for instance. Even embraced Ugandan govt
    officials with all of their anti-gay laws and policies. It's not hard to see how this sort of bigotry, if legislated by papal edict, could easily lead to another holocaust of innocent victims.
     
  16. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,927
    Actually, Manson did feed and house the poor. He negotiated group housing in an old movie ranch, and they collected unused vegetables around town to feed the poor.
     
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,877
  18. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    You're right. The teachings of the Catholic Church have led to many more deaths than Manson was ever responsible for.
     
  19. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    How dare you argue with facts! Blasphemer!
     
  20. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Maybe I just forgot to take my sarcasm pill today, because I'm really not at all sure what you're trying to accomplish here.
     
  21. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    That is why I referred to the Pope by name. Pope Benedict has not murdered anyone. The Pope's claim to the Vicar of Christ is well rooted in millennia of history and tradition, not so for Manson. Pope Benedict didn’t just wake up one day and declare himself Christ or the Vicar of Christ. It was a title bestowed upon him by fellow clerics.

    Further the Church’s history is not on trial here.

    While Pope’s do not have the secular power they did in previous centuries, they still have considerable power in world affairs (e.g. Catholic involvement in Obamacare). With regard to Uganda and homosexuality, you have it wrong. The Catholic Church along with other churches stood against the Ugandan Government on homosexuality.

    Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill

    “Several Christian organizations oppose it, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, Integrity Uganda, Exodus International, Accepting Evangelicals, Changing Attitude, Courage, Ekklesia, Fulcrum, Inclusive Church and the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement. Exodus International sent a letter to President Museveni stating, "The Christian church ... must be permitted to extend the love and compassion of Christ to all. We believe that this legislation would make this mission a difficult if not impossible task to carry out."[63] A group of U.S. Christian leaders have released a statement to Uganda about the bill, one of these leaders being Thomas Patrick Melady, former U.S. Ambassador to Uganda.[64] The Anglican Reverend Canon Gideon Byamugisha said that the Bill "would become state-legislated genocide".[65]” – Wikipedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill#Religious_and_human_rights_organizations

    I think too much power in the hands of one person for extended periods of time is always a bad thing . . . Pope or otherwise.
     
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    I suggest you go back and read what I wrote again.

    "And last I checked Manson didn’t operate a multinational organization that ran charities in virtually every nation, feeding the poor, educating the poor, providing housing and medical care for the poor." - Joepistole

    Did Manson run a multinational organization that ran charities in every nation that fed, educated, housed and provided medical care for the poor?
     
  23. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,927
    Not to my knowledge, but he was a busy guy.

    Anyway, evil Pope:
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...words/2010/03/the_great_catholic_coverup.html
     

Share This Page