Originally posted by BitRaiser

My point is that since Harper is seen as a Bush Buddy, maybe he can be manipulated in the same way. Maybe just dicredit/shame us into getting into lock step with Extreamist Millitant Christian veiw and manipulating us into helping win their war against Mulsims.

We have no war against Muslims. Stop spreading disinfo.

[Please note: I do not consiter all Christians to be intolerant pyscopaths. I have, however met more Bad Christians than Bad Muslims, Bad Budists, or Bad Pegans. Ok, I've met a lot of "bad" Pegans, but it was "bad" in a fun way.

What an interesting comment. Are the "Bad Muslims, Budists (Buddhists?) and Pegans (Pagans?) also "intolerant psycopaths?"

To all:
The Pope is a toothless old figurehead with no actual power, outside of what members of the RCC give him. Those that need a spiritual leader and choose him as theirs are the only ones affected. Pretty much the same as all Christian sects, Muslims, and others. So to get all worked up about what he says is silly.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by BitRaiser

My point is that since Harper is seen as a Bush Buddy, maybe he can be manipulated in the same way. Maybe just dicredit/shame us into getting into lock step with Extreamist Millitant Christian veiw and manipulating us into helping win their war against Mulsims.

We have no war against Muslims. Stop spreading disinfo.

You're an Exteamist Millitant Christian?
Really??
No, I didn't think so.
I didn't say "All Christians", now did I?

Don't make my statement into mis-information, please.

[Please note: I do not consiter all Christians to be intolerant pyscopaths. I have, however met more Bad Christians than Bad Muslims, Bad Budists, or Bad Pegans. Ok, I've met a lot of "bad" Pegans, but it was "bad" in a fun way.

What an interesting comment. Are the "Bad Muslims, Budists (Buddhists?) and Pegans (Pagans?) also "intolerant psycopaths?"

Yes.
That was my point.
Extreamist nutjobs are infact nutjobs and are most often Intolerant Psycopaths. If they weren't intolerant, there wouldn't be a problem. If they weren't Psycopaths, they wouldn't cause problems.
See what I'm getting at?

Extreamist = bad.
Rational Moderation = Good.
Edit: As for the poor spelling (and I openly admit that those were bad knits you picked), I've seen much, much worse on these boards. I really should be using a checker, but I tend to get to entusiastic in my foruming to interupt it for technical reasons.

To all:
The Pope is a toothless old figurehead with no actual power, outside of what members of the RCC give him. Those that need a spiritual leader and choose him as theirs are the only ones affected. Pretty much the same as all Christian sects, Muslims, and others. So to get all worked up about what he says is silly.

The fact that you could say such a thing safely takes you out of the extreamist catagory and you may dismiss any comment I've made or will make as not being targeted at you.

The problem is there are a lot of people out there that don't share your view. Extreamist Catholics still see the Pope as the Head of The Church. What he says is spiritual Cannon, by the writes of the church.

I doubt very much that any Canadian Politician is suddenly going to shift his views just because the Pope beaked off about something he obviously doesn't understand. Well, I hope not anyway. However, those statements can taint Canada's political image to the ignorant masses. Those masses could put pressure on the Government. If the pressure is high enough, the Government might have it's hand forced or be undermined by a political party seeking to exploit a cheap populist vote (as I feel GWB did).

Let's put it this way... if the Pope came out and said "Bush is responcible for great crimes against humanity and needs to be removed from office", do you not think that would have a major impact on US politics?

[edit on 11-9-2006 by BitRaiser]

Originally posted by WalkInSilence

Originally posted by interestedalways

Not all Catholics are bad people of course just brainwashed and wanting something to believe in

Thank You Interested, I'm catholic and we don't all fallow the pope religiously, shhh don't tell anyone
No seriously I was a postulate(prior to entering) in a contemplative order for several years, a devote catholic and I promise you they and many other catholics did not bow to the doctrine of the church.
500 years ago they would have been burned at the stake.
I am still devoted.
WIS

Thank you for (apparently) understanding that this thread is not targeted at you.
When discussing things of this nature it's easy to include too much bluster and offened those you didn't intend. It's also easy to become offended by statements that weren't ment to do so.

If the Pope reads my ranting is offended, GOOD!
If you support what he said, then maybe we've got an issue of conflict to discuss.
If you're a moderate who doesn't take things like this to heart, then maybe you can help with the discussion.

Point of Contention:

My biggest beef with the issues that the Pope brought up are that they are antiquated and can be rationally dismissed.

Population control in this day and age is a GOOD thing.
Most of those who get abortions are people who are not in a situation where they can propperly support a new human life. Often pregnancies happen in the worst of times. Prostitutes, drug addicts, the permanantly unemployed, the downtrodden, the abused, and of cource, the remarkably stupid are all at high risk of unintentional pregancies.

It's my view that these are all people who SHOULD NOT BREED! We don't need more of that in our sociaty. If someone under those conditions are looking towards abortion, it's a good thing for the whole of sociaty.

As for Gay Rights, I'm not gay but I know many gays and lesbians. I've known gay couples to have fantasticly healty relationships and have been constructive within sociaty. They can't breed, of cource, but many of them adopt children and thus help to aliviate another social problem (Before anyone brings it up, studies have shown that adopted children are just as likely to be gay or straight as those adopted by hetero couples).
For all intents and purposes, their relationships are no different than anyone elses with the exception that they cannot breed. Why, then, should they not be entitled to treat their relationship in the same way as anyone else?

Simply stated, "Be Fruitful and Multiply" is an edict from a past age that no-longer applies.

Now on the otherhand, there are tenents in the church that really should be looked at as being more important to governments around the world. Tolerance. Honesty. Understanding. Compassion. LOVE!
Most of all, the concept that greed is NOT a good thing.

If he had appealed on those levels (and not by envoking the Catholic dominion), I would have no problem with what he said.
The fact is, he tried to apply views that are exclusive to his faith to something that is logicly incompatible and attempted to exploit his position to make it "meaningful".
That ticks me off.

YOU GUYS ARE CRAZY HES JUST DOING HIS FRICKING JOB COME ON?!

posted by BitRaiser

My biggest beef with the issues that the Pope brought up are that they are antiquated and can be rationally dismissed. [Edited by Don W]

Look, I’m no friend of Popes. The selection of Benedict XVI demonstrated the most callous attitude imaginable in the College of Cardinals. To choose an ex-German soldier to be pope is outrageous. Surely to God they could have done better without trying. The Church just wobbles along, bouncing from one absurdity to another. If it was not for the pure love and devotion of oh so many of its adherents, it would die of its own inertia. How long the strong bottom can sustain a crippled top remains to be seen. Yet, we must concede that it - the RCC - as a private organization, can do pretty much what it wants.

OTOH, even its critics have a legitimate interest in it. Or so I argue. By clinging to issues that are passe, the hierarchy is speeding its own demise. And for that, I suppose I should be grateful, but I am reminded of the admonition, the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know. I'm not sure turning 1.2 billion people loose in this modern world is a wise thing to do.

As an outsider by choice but who has family inside, I know there is a reservoir or energy “locked” in the laity, which the clerics have not been able to tap. Bottom-up thinking is atypical to the Church. I have thought if the Church opened the election of the next pope to the 1.2 billion Catholics around the world, the Church could become one of the most beneficial organizations (NGO) on the planet. With computers and the internet, it could be done.

The first round would let any Catholic vote for anyone. To reduce fraud, the voting would be held in churches where the lay members would determine who got to vote. Round one would be a nominating round. ”The first vote would probably produce 500 serious candidates and 50,000 frivolous ones. 2 weeks later, the second voting takes place. This time you could only vote for those who were nominated. This round would produce perhaps 100 to 1000 people who would be called serous candidates. Again, 2 weeks later, the voting would be a multi-choice, each member voting for their own top 10 choices. Number 1, number 2, and so on, up to 10 candidates. Then the next and final vote would select from the top 10.

Viola! The new pope!


[edit on 9/11/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite

I have thought if the Church opened the election of the next pope to the 1.2 billion Catholics around the world, the Church could be one fo the more beneficial organizations on the planet. With computers and the internet, it could be done. The first round would let any Catholic vote for anyone. To reduce fraud, the voting would be held in churches where the members would be able to determine who got to vote.

Why don't we start by making general voting work where it is already being used. We haven't eliminated fraud, we haven't even gotten a system that allows joe public to cast a ballot fully armed with the truth about their choices of candidate.

posted by Relentless

Why don't we start by making general voting work where it is already being used. We haven't eliminated fraud, we haven't even gotten a system that allows joe public to cast a ballot fully armed with the truth about their choices of candidate.

I suppose it is impossible to guarantee no single vote will not be wrongly cast. In any election. We plod along despite that knowledge. My point is not so much to have a perfect election, but is to provide a means for the laity to engage in the rulership of the institution they love. I am convinced the New Testament implicitly empowers the laity to chose its bishops. If not explicitly. Times change. People change. The RCC rulership is moribund. Some way to release the pent up energy of its membership is past due. Think outside the box.


[edit on 9/11/2006 by donwhite]

Back to the original post.....

I wholeheartedly suppprt the Pope and agree with his stance.
All of the anti-christian, pro everything liberal propaganda in the world will not change the truth of his words. Why should the church change it's corps beliefs in order to appease you peoples. For your info.... the shortage of priests is not based on homophobia, t is based on the poor education in the schools and the lack of moral responsibility taught in the home.

Originally posted by BitRaiser
Yup... I'm ticked:

I'm proud of the fact that Canada keeps Church and state seperate. I'm proud that we allow our people to make their own choices (it's called FREEDOM!). I do NOT apressiate his Popal-highness dictating to us how we should live and how to run our damned countery.

We aren't all Christians here. We don't confuse the laws of man and the laws of God(s). Our elected officals aren't toadies to the Evengelicals.

If the Pope doesn't like it, tough. It's our country and we are FREE to run it how we see fit.

You post is so ridiculous, it's hard to know if you're serious.

If I understand you correctly, you think the Pope, the head of the Catholic Church, should not be allowed to instruct Catholic clergy (all of whom took a vow of obedience) on matters of faith? And that same clergy, some of whom are citizens of Canada, should not have a voice in Canadian politics?

Do you know how stupid that sounds? Do even bother to read what you post?

Ii would have rather preferred the pope to condemm Israel over there attacks in lebanon as well as Hezzbullah for their attack against Israel.

And yes I agree the pope should keep his opinions to himself, unless he is directing his views to Catholics in Canada. What any other religion does should not have his concern.

Canada is a great country from what I have seen. You lot have your problems just as the rest of the world. Still a great Country though

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
And yes I agree the pope should keep his opinions to himself, unless he is directing his views to Catholics in Canada. What any other religion does should not have his concern.

He was in Rome speaking with His Bishops from Canada.

What don't we get here?

Woops annoyed you there eh apologises for that one, missed that one.

Regardless he should look at his own lot in the Vatican before he criticises anyone outside his own independant state.

Actually, what is annoying is that so many people who know this are ignoring it and causing people like you to get the wrong idea. It wasn't really directed at you, ya just showed up at the wrong time.

this whole thread is based on a false premise. The Pope was talking to his own Bishops so saying he was sticking his nose where it doesn't belong is obviously a stretch.

Originally posted by interestedalways

Besides IMO the Catholics took God out of the Church a long time ago and replaced the male god with Mary and baby Jesus images everywhere to worship. Maybe they won't have women priests because they think woman is an incubator for birthing their seed and if she was to find her real power she would blow him out of the water spiritually and maybe expose the lie of their real goddess sun worshipping scheme clothed in old white men's clothes that like to have sex with young boys right at the age that their essence is most powerful and pure.

Whose essence are you talking about the priests's or the young boys?

Seems like they think the only thing women are good for is to have male babies. I'll bet Mother Theresa would be .......

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Astronomer70]

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Canada is a great country from what I have seen. You lot have your problems just as the rest of the world. Still a great Country though

Damned Staight!
On both accounts.

Yeah, we've got our problems. I'm still in shock that Harper is in office, although I believe I understand how it happened. I believe we have some large scale corruption issues that aren't even thought of as corruption issues. I believe we have a tradition of leanant liberties given to those in office. I further believe it's an inharitance from you Brits. :p It's been a long standing matter of principle that Kings and Queens were given a status of privliage far beyond what would be acceptable at any other level of sociaty. This was partially transphered to elected officals when they came into power. To seem like proper leader figures, the had to be graced with a certain "nobility" and privlage.

It's only natural that this would presist in Canadian government since we never really tossed you guys out. We outgrew British control and basicly just "grew up" on our own, adopting most of your systems, but refining them with lessons we learned by watching you Limes and Yanks try to kill each other and how our American brother country grew out of that mess.

Anyway, point is we adopted that built-in corruption. It's in need of reform, but it's the vurrent fashion to use instances of this privilage as ammunition in mud-slinging matches. It's a new form of politics... people scream at each other, call names, and atempt to discredit each other while also trying to say whatever it takes to make them popular to the people. No one actually talks about anything. There's no discussion of the party line and policy is shifted at the whim of favor.

It's this political climite that allowed the Liberal Sponsorship Scandal to be handled very poorly. Rather than use it as an example of needed reform, it was sensationalized and used as a device for Harper's Conservatives to skate into office.

that's just one problem.
:p
I think you can relate to it.