It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pope Sticks his Nose were it Doesn't Belong (attacks Canada)

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 06:52 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

see my post on the Catholic Churchs position on latex condoms and HIV/AIDS




posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Just remember the Roman Catholic popes have been corrupt. Do a little research and you will find that my statement appears to be correct.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by wildcat]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   


posted by wildcat

Just remember the Roman Catholic popes have been corrupt. Do a little research and you will find that my statement appears to be correct.



This is important. Critics of the RCC usually are being critical of its historical role. I and most of the others, do not mean to be critical of the religious practices in which devout Catholics engage. That is strictly none of our business.

The fact remains that the Roman Catholic Church is the oldest extant institution in the West. Like it or not, I believe that in itself gives me the right to be critical of its past practices and to take some liberties with its current policies. Good Catholics - of which the world is filled - are themselves in a dilemma. They “know” in their Goldwater "heart of hearts" that the 180 old and odd men in Rome who rule their church with an iron hand are about 2 centuries late. But they are at a loss what to do about it.

May I summarize my position, briefly? I contend the founder of the RCC was Emperor Constantine around 320 AD. I noted that the great Council of Nicea was not called by the Bishop of Rome. It was not held in Rome. It was held in Nicea on Constantine beckoning. The most notable bishop was Esubius. I have looked, but I could not find the Bishop of Rome to have even been in attendance.

We of Christian culture know from the books in the Holy Bible that Paul was in Rome. We of Protestant persuasion do not believe Peter was ever in Rome. And certainly his bones are not buried there. The first church council was held in Jerusalem when James and Peter called Paul to task. It basically ended with them agreeing to disagree. James - brother of Jesus - was probably the #1 apostle after Jesus death.

The papacy struggled with the church councils which would be dominant, and have the final word. It was only in Vatican 1, 1869-1870, that the struggle was put to rest when the papacy won the day! The declaration that the papacy was infallible was the outcome and dispelled the need for future councils, except as a rubber stamp for the popes.

I could go on but then I have made my point. The RCC was “invented” in the 4th century, waged relentless war to become the dominant force in the new state approved religion of Christianity - it was not the only approved religion. For various reasons, it became dominant by the early middle ages. From the 14th century onward, people of independent spirit have fought to gain their freedom from the RCC. Many died in the process.

I like to refer to the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of French Protestants (Huguenots) as exemplary of the struggle. On hearing that 15,000 Protestants had been burned alive in their church buildings, the Pope was overjoyed, said a special Mass of celebration, ordered the bells of Rome pealed all day and said it was the best news he had heard since the Crusaders captured Jerusalem. Those were tough times. A late 15th century Papal Bull ordered Spanish Jews to wear a distinctive mark, to live in ghettos, to convert to Catholicism, leave the country penniless or die. And etc.

But none of that has any direct bearing on a Catholic in 2006 worshiping God as he sees fit. But he should be aware that because of the history of his beloved institution, us non-members are always suspicious.


[edit on 9/12/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   
then isnt it utterly hyprocritical of the good catholics of which this world is filled with like u say to continue to allow the corruption to be perpetuated by supporting the institutions under the corrupt rule? wouldnt it be more christian-like of your members to as they say fight the good fight rather than stand around at a loss for what to do about it? because while u figure out what to do, the catholic institution is killing people in Africa everyday by urging them to burn their condoms and tellign them that not only do the condoms not help but that they indeed increase the likelihood of contracting the HIV virus? standing by and allowing organizations you are connected to do such things is the same thing as condoning it.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Does anyone even care what this guy is saying? I mean, I have no problme with him saying anything, just like I don't have any problem with some high Mulsim saying anything ... they're allowed to say anything they ant but they can not expect that we are going to do what he sais ... Canada is a souvereign country ... this guy is from freaking Italy, (irrelevant and baiting comment removed)

[edit on 9-13-2006 by worldwatcher]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by kris44

what the # is he talking about, why doesn't he go jack off on some statue of Jesus or go back to bed ...


THAT WAS TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR!


Can't you discuss your opinions with some semblence of maturity?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   


posted by Or_Die_Trying

Then isn’t it utterly hypocritical of the good Catholics of which this world is filled to continue to allow the corruption to be perpetuated by supporting the institution under the corrupt rule? [Edited by Don W]



It is not so apparent to most Catholics that they can change their Church. Those who actually believe in God, which is fewer and fewer, may be frightened to challenge the clerics and hierarchy. Excommunication may be a matter of concern. I’ve lost my source, but a few years ago I read a religion historian who argued there is a significant difference in the belief in God and believing in the belief in God. He argued that most people today are in the latter group, not the former. Fortunately, religion evolves like everything else. Change is inevitable. Let’s hope it is for the better.



“ . . because while you figure out what to do, the Catholic institution is killing people in Africa everyday by urging them to burn their condoms and telling them the condoms do not help but they increase the likelihood of contracting the HIV virus? Standing by and allowing organizations you are connected to do such things is the same thing as condoning it.


Well, Mr. ODT, your American government does the same thing. What are we to do about that? Changing institutions is heady stuff. Martin Luther began the Re-formation in 1517 which resulted in religious wars across Europe that did not end until 1648 at Westphalia. All that “ended” was the killing of each other, the differences persist to this day. We can see the unbridled enthusiasm this topic has raised. Advocacy of religion is not a kindly undertaking. You’d think as smart as we are and as futile as we know it is to talk to the unwilling about religion, we’d stop it. But then, you always have those like Pope Benedict XVI and Pat Robertson, to name another, who urge divisive goals and objectives which many of us see as in medicine, to be contra-indicated. And etc.



[edit on 9/13/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless

Originally posted by kris44

what the # is he talking about, why doesn't he go jack off on some statue of Jesus or go back to bed ...


THAT WAS TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR!


Can't you discuss your opinions with some semblence of maturity?

Ok, I dodn't know you people where like that, I'm sorry for that, I know about the censorship of swearing on tv in the us but I dod not know it also applied on the internet ... here In Belgium saying something like that isn't seen that immature ... it's just a form of frustration ... we've got the same freaking thing going on here ... some Cardinal doing as the pope says and interfering with politricks ... many people are sih of it and so am I ... they should sue the guy ... he's destabilizing the country ... it's sort of a foreign dictotor telling the Belgian prime minister what the do ... then this prime minister sais he doesn't listen to the chuch ... but what do we see ... he does exactly the pope or some cardinal sais ... it's sickens me just like the majority of Belgians ... the Catholic Church is like a cancer that needs to be removed ... believe in Christianity doesn't need a Catholic Church ...

WE DO NOT NEED A MIDDLE MAN TO LINK WITH THE CREATOR!



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by kris44


THAT WAS TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR!


Can't you discuss your opinions with some semblence of maturity?



Discuss? Yes. Gratitous insults? Vulgarity, crudity, child-like behaviour? NO!






[edit on 9/13/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I resent the gay agenda which is maybe 5% of the Canadian population forcing the public to bend to their will.

The pope of which his many adherents tend to represent leadership is trying to instill in these people the responsibility they must exercise in the positions that they hold.

The ramming down the throats of the gay agenda must stop until the vast majority of the public accepts this.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

Well, Mr. ODT, your American government does the same thing.

[edit on 9/13/2006 by donwhite]


Why dont you back that up with evidence



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
The ramming down the throats of the gay agenda must stop until the vast majority of the public accepts this.

Why?

It's not like they're hurting anyone.
I believe that part of what makes Canadian's Canadians is that we don't feel the need to impose our views on everyone else. If gays want to marry, why should we stop 'em? It's not like their relationships and the status there of has ANY impact on you (or me) at all.

I consider it a positive thing when the 95% can still allow the 5% to live in peace and happyness.

If more people felt that way, the world would be a better place.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   


posted by denythestatusquo


I resent the gay agenda which is maybe 5% of the Canadian population . . The pope of which his many adherents tend to represent leadership is trying to instill in these people the responsibility they must exercise in the positions that they hold. The ramming down the throats of the gay agenda must stop unless the vast majority of the public accepts this. [Edited by Don W]


When, in the course of human events, any institution becomes so large and so powerful that it is able to direct the conduct of miltons of its adherents into ways that deny other millions their just due, then any person adversely effected by such outrageous policies that or similar institutions promulgate in earnestness has a natural right nay a human right, to oppose such monstrous commentary from such institutions.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Dunno what to think. Guess our Canadian Catholic Cardinals will have to be more timely with the transfer funds to Rome?

Dallas



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   


posted by Duzey

The Pope can say what he wants, but he can't attempt to use the Catholic Churches in Canada to influence politics, which is exactly what he is doing. I think it's quite a nice compromise actually, no church in government and no government in church. It's a lot easier to keep laws based in religion from getting passed than to try and repeal them and our government doesn't get slapped with numerous Charter of Rights violations . . when we did involve religion and politics in this country We ended with atrocities such as the Residential School system, where for a few hundred years, our government tried to convert all the First Nations people to Christianity by force. [Edited by Don W]



As Benedict XVI, the old hand behind the scenes operator Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, is apparently the willing victim to the Peter Principle, a colloquial principle of hierarchiology, stated as "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." First described by Dr. Laurence J. Peter.

See for the latest Holy Father’s faux pas news.yahoo.com...

Maybe Benedict should stick to religion?



[edit on 9/15/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
The Pope can say whatever he wants, but he can't attempt to use the Catholic Churches in Canada to influence politics, which is exactly what he is doing.

Is the church under him or not?
If it is not, then it has no place being under his thumb.

It's still his right to impose.
That's how we go so many denominations in the first place.
Catholic head tried to shove it down the individual church's throat, and those churches revolted.
The only issue is when the government tries to back up either side:

You see an issue with State backing up the pope's side, and enforcing pope's law.

I see the issue in the entirely opposite direction. I see State trying to interfere with the church's right to follow as their leader ordered, and is directly agianst the foundation of seperation of Church and State. No church should be banned the right of excommunication due to non-conformity. If they lose all their parisioners, then they lose all their parishioners. They will either change or they will no longer be a church in that state. If they don't want lawmakers who don't fit in, then so be it. They can form a new church of leader rejects.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   


posted by wildcat

Why don’t you back that up with evidence


I thought it was general knowledge. The GOP since Newt Gingrich won his Contract with America in 1994, has attached amendments to our contributions to the WHO banning the use of such money for birth control measures. (Which by the bye, is probably illegal and done merely to satisfy their base.)



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Today, the Vatican said the Pope was sorry he offended Muslims by quoting from a 14th century church leader that Muhammad had brought only "evil and inhuman" things to the world. The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said the Pope made "a good first step" in "recognizing the hurt he caused". Labour peer Baroness Uddin had earlier called the Pope's words a "throwaway irrelevant analysis of religion". The Pope’s criticism of the Prophet Muhammad was made by 14th century Emperor Paleologos of the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul.

Reacting to the Pope's statement of regret, the MCB continued: "But [we are] not sure whether this is enough of an apology. "It would've been better if he'd said the views of the emperor no way accorded with his. There is still a concern that he has not repudiated the views of the emperor." The MCB said it would write an official letter asking the Pope to clarify his comments.

In his speech, the ex-German solder Pope Benedict XVI explored the differences between Islam and Christianity, and the relationship between violence and faith . . 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." From a BBC story.
uk.news.yahoo.com...

Why a 14th century quote? Because the RCC claims, among other things, that it is “eternal” and therefore, unchanging. Hmm?



[edit on 9/16/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Pope Benedict said: "Some of the Holy Prophet Mohammad’s teaching were evil and inhuman. (Depends on the translator what Pope Benedict really said.)

Bush43 has recently began to use the newly invented word for this campaign, “Islamofascists.”

Now, the Muslim world is furious over what the Pope said, but seems to ignore altogether what Bush43 says.

What does that tell you about "relative influence" around the world? Maybe we should privatize American foreign polity out to the Vatican?



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   


Originally posted by kris44

what the # is he talking about, why doesn't he go jack off on some statue of Jesus or go back to bed ...



That just shows to me you are not mature enough to have a decent discussion without resorting to insults.

I would have to ask the same question.

Is the Pope not the Head Figure of the Catholic church/religion?

That would be the same as saying that the Queen of England as the head of the Prodestant Faith in England has no right to tell them what to do either. Wouldnt it?

[edit on 16-9-2006 by spencerjohnstone]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join