[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]If St Malachy is right, there will be only one more, "Peter the Roman". He will likely be an Italian (Referenced to Milan). He may have had enough votes this time around but vetoed by pressure from others. It's quite possible that Pope Sidious I... er I mean Pope Benedict XVI :D will have a short reign (maybe even die to foul play).
I heard he already pissed off a few with a comment about fundamentalism in the Catholic Church and how he intends to cure the spread of liberlism in the RCC...
will be interesting to see what unfolds... [/B][/QUOTE]
If St Malachy is right then most of the people here at Firstones are truly screwed. Some of the obnoxious ones in this thread doubly so. :P
If it really is a forgery then we might have a bit more breathing room till judgement day.
I will only comment... that I notice an abnormally big quantity of discussion in this thread... revolving around silly superstition.
I don't exactly care who the new Pope is. There simply is one, because they bothered to elect one. Since I'm outside their sandbox, I cannot tell them whom to elect.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow [/i]
[B]There simply is one, because they bothered to elect one.[/B][/QUOTE]
That's a rather nihilistic attitude to take. After all, there's only a forum for you to express this viewpoint on because someone bothered to make one.
It's rather odd to disparage something for the reason that it was done because someone bothered to do it.
Do you react the same way when political leaders are elected? After all, America has a president because we bothered to elect one. We all could just as easily stop voting, stop paying taxes, and stop supporting the government in general, and watch the whole thing come tumbling down.
Life is not a spectator sport. It will be exactly what you want to make of it. The pope IS a very poweful position, being the leader of over one BILLION people and how people live their lives, which affect everyone around them. I hate playing the gay card, but I see and deal with the viewpoints of spritual leaders every time I go out and drive and see the "one man, one woman" bumper sticker. So yes, I am going to be concerned who is elected thank you very much.
I try to stay out of involving myself in theological discussion, being an atheist, but the Catholic church's position on homosexuality is really one which I have to take issue with. In short, the nominaton of Pontiff *is* an extremely serious issue.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i]
That's a rather nihilistic attitude to take.[/quote]
Some degree of nihilism is healthy.
[quote]After all, there's only a forum for you to express this viewpoint on because someone bothered to make one. [/quote]
Sure, but how does it relate? A forum is open for everyone, while a church is only for people who want to follow its beliefs.
[quote]It's rather odd to disparage something for the reason that it was done because someone bothered to do it.[/quote]
When did I disparage the guy? I haven't even got started with that. Only now that he made his first official moves... can I seriously commence.
[quote]Do you react the same way when political leaders are elected? After all, America has a president because we bothered to elect one.[/quote]
In fact I do. When they are elected democractically, I give them a period of grace (duration dependent on their former ways) to show their colors.
When the US elected presidents, did I tell you whom to elect? No. So there. I cannot tell Catholics whom to elect either... and for a little while, I simply watch and see whom they elected.
I am fine with them practising their beliefs, and if they so want, organizing a hierarchy within their church. I won't make much of an issue about it... as long, and only as long... as their church keeps its nose out of secular matters.
The moment a new pope starts criticizing a country for permitting equal rights (for example Spain for intending to permit gay people to marry)... I naturally *do* resume my old pattern, and start opposing such a church.
Since popes are not elected very democractically, and he did it yesterday (stepped into a bucket of politics), the period of grace is over. I still don't care whom they vote for next time (not my business)... but this guy is going find himself on an obstacle course.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow [/i]
[B]Sure, but how does it relate? A forum is open for everyone, while a church is only for people who want to follow its beliefs.[/B][/QUOTE]
Technically, this forum is only for people who follow the forum rules. :p
In practise, participation in forums (which are generally considered places for discussion, and discussion requires difference) does generally not expect agreement on principles, merely agreement on conduct.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
... not exactly what I would have wished for. He seems like the most conservative choice they could have made.
We'll see what happens.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by croxis [/i]
[B]Life is not a spectator sport. It will be exactly what you want to make of it. The pope IS a very poweful position, being the leader of over one BILLION people and how people live their lives, which affect everyone around them. I hate playing the gay card, but I see and deal with the viewpoints of spritual leaders every time I go out and drive and see the "one man, one woman" bumper sticker. So yes, I am going to be concerned who is elected thank you very much. [/B][/QUOTE] For context: The Catholic Church actually teaches that homosexuals should be respected and that being homosexual is not by itself a sin. To quote from the Catechism: [i]They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.[/i]
I do grant you that to imply that there is some "just discrimination" is illogical.
You can read the whole three paragraphs on homosexuality in the Catechism directly from the [url=http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#II] Vatican's website [/url] (scroll down from link position to 2357-2359).
Not explicit there, but something I've seen elsewhere is that the Catholic Church under John Paul II pronounced that some people have a natural homosexual tendency (hence the call for acceptance), I found a mention of that on the following link which also provides a broader context: [url]http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rom.htm[/url]
Now for that statement that the Pope [i]actually[/i] leads how one thousand million people live their lives....
Sorry, that's a misconception, one thousand million declared Catholics does not mean that all of us live and follow to the letter each and every precept.
In the matter of contraception, and of chastity in general, as just one example, I personally know of way too many Catholics that make exceptions.
As another (maybe more trivial) example: if by some miracle all Catholics woke up one Sunday morning and realized that they've been sinning by not going to Church as they should there simply aren't enough Churches to fit them nor enough priests to celebrate the Masses needed.
Personally, I think that if homosexuals do wish to make love it's their choice. Whether that's a sin or not is none of my business.
I should mention that a religious marriage does not have to equal a civil union. A marriage before the State should be separate from a marriage before the Church.
In that respect I think that the debate over gay marriage is too much a matter of semantics.
I personally have no objections to homosexual civil unions.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Capt.Montoya [/i]
[B]I should mention that a religious marriage does not have to equal a civil union. A marriage before the State should be separate from a marriage before the Church.
In that respect I think that the debate over gay marriage is too much a matter of semantics.
I personally have no objections to homosexual civil unions. [/B][/QUOTE]
Comments
[B]If St Malachy is right, there will be only one more, "Peter the Roman". He will likely be an Italian (Referenced to Milan). He may have had enough votes this time around but vetoed by pressure from others. It's quite possible that Pope Sidious I... er I mean Pope Benedict XVI :D will have a short reign (maybe even die to foul play).
I heard he already pissed off a few with a comment about fundamentalism in the Catholic Church and how he intends to cure the spread of liberlism in the RCC...
will be interesting to see what unfolds... [/B][/QUOTE]
If St Malachy is right then most of the people here at Firstones are truly screwed. Some of the obnoxious ones in this thread doubly so. :P
If it really is a forgery then we might have a bit more breathing room till judgement day.
I don't exactly care who the new Pope is. There simply is one, because they bothered to elect one. Since I'm outside their sandbox, I cannot tell them whom to elect.
[B]There simply is one, because they bothered to elect one.[/B][/QUOTE]
That's a rather nihilistic attitude to take. After all, there's only a forum for you to express this viewpoint on because someone bothered to make one.
It's rather odd to disparage something for the reason that it was done because someone bothered to do it.
Do you react the same way when political leaders are elected? After all, America has a president because we bothered to elect one. We all could just as easily stop voting, stop paying taxes, and stop supporting the government in general, and watch the whole thing come tumbling down.
I try to stay out of involving myself in theological discussion, being an atheist, but the Catholic church's position on homosexuality is really one which I have to take issue with. In short, the nominaton of Pontiff *is* an extremely serious issue.
Regards,
Morden
That's a rather nihilistic attitude to take.[/quote]
Some degree of nihilism is healthy.
[quote]After all, there's only a forum for you to express this viewpoint on because someone bothered to make one. [/quote]
Sure, but how does it relate? A forum is open for everyone, while a church is only for people who want to follow its beliefs.
[quote]It's rather odd to disparage something for the reason that it was done because someone bothered to do it.[/quote]
When did I disparage the guy? I haven't even got started with that. Only now that he made his first official moves... can I seriously commence.
[quote]Do you react the same way when political leaders are elected? After all, America has a president because we bothered to elect one.[/quote]
In fact I do. When they are elected democractically, I give them a period of grace (duration dependent on their former ways) to show their colors.
When the US elected presidents, did I tell you whom to elect? No. So there. I cannot tell Catholics whom to elect either... and for a little while, I simply watch and see whom they elected.
I am fine with them practising their beliefs, and if they so want, organizing a hierarchy within their church. I won't make much of an issue about it... as long, and only as long... as their church keeps its nose out of secular matters.
The moment a new pope starts criticizing a country for permitting equal rights (for example Spain for intending to permit gay people to marry)... I naturally *do* resume my old pattern, and start opposing such a church.
Since popes are not elected very democractically, and he did it yesterday (stepped into a bucket of politics), the period of grace is over. I still don't care whom they vote for next time (not my business)... but this guy is going find himself on an obstacle course.
[B]Sure, but how does it relate? A forum is open for everyone, while a church is only for people who want to follow its beliefs.[/B][/QUOTE]
Technically, this forum is only for people who follow the forum rules. :p
In practise, participation in forums (which are generally considered places for discussion, and discussion requires difference) does generally not expect agreement on principles, merely agreement on conduct.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'll have another beer... ;)
... not exactly what I would have wished for. He seems like the most conservative choice they could have made.
We'll see what happens.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by croxis [/i]
[B]Life is not a spectator sport. It will be exactly what you want to make of it. The pope IS a very poweful position, being the leader of over one BILLION people and how people live their lives, which affect everyone around them. I hate playing the gay card, but I see and deal with the viewpoints of spritual leaders every time I go out and drive and see the "one man, one woman" bumper sticker. So yes, I am going to be concerned who is elected thank you very much. [/B][/QUOTE] For context: The Catholic Church actually teaches that homosexuals should be respected and that being homosexual is not by itself a sin. To quote from the Catechism: [i]They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.[/i]
I do grant you that to imply that there is some "just discrimination" is illogical.
You can read the whole three paragraphs on homosexuality in the Catechism directly from the [url=http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#II] Vatican's website [/url] (scroll down from link position to 2357-2359).
Not explicit there, but something I've seen elsewhere is that the Catholic Church under John Paul II pronounced that some people have a natural homosexual tendency (hence the call for acceptance), I found a mention of that on the following link which also provides a broader context: [url]http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rom.htm[/url]
Now for that statement that the Pope [i]actually[/i] leads how one thousand million people live their lives....
Sorry, that's a misconception, one thousand million declared Catholics does not mean that all of us live and follow to the letter each and every precept.
In the matter of contraception, and of chastity in general, as just one example, I personally know of way too many Catholics that make exceptions.
As another (maybe more trivial) example: if by some miracle all Catholics woke up one Sunday morning and realized that they've been sinning by not going to Church as they should there simply aren't enough Churches to fit them nor enough priests to celebrate the Masses needed.
Personally, I think that if homosexuals do wish to make love it's their choice. Whether that's a sin or not is none of my business.
I should mention that a religious marriage does not have to equal a civil union. A marriage before the State should be separate from a marriage before the Church.
In that respect I think that the debate over gay marriage is too much a matter of semantics.
I personally have no objections to homosexual civil unions.
It was in responce to mine actually
[B]I should mention that a religious marriage does not have to equal a civil union. A marriage before the State should be separate from a marriage before the Church.
In that respect I think that the debate over gay marriage is too much a matter of semantics.
I personally have no objections to homosexual civil unions. [/B][/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0504/S00283.htm[/url]