UPSB v4
Serious Discussion / Pope Benedict XVI Resigning by end of Febuary
-
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 10:41:06
omg shocking news, well this news was given like feb 3 or something our pope, Benedict the XVI, is resigning due to health problems and i was shocked, the last pope who ever resigned was in the middle ages. to all, please pray for the pope for wellness and safety
-
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 11:06:26
I think it's time we retire the concept of pope.
-
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 11:12:46
600 years ago since the last resignation. Damn.
-
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 11:26:24
-
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 12:02:16
Yeah it surprised me as well. I remember seeing and hearing Pope Benedict about 5 years ago in Sydney. Really wonderful and kind leader. I think its an interesting but respectful and understandable resignation. Of course Ill pray for Peter's Successor. :)
-
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 12:31:12
Trivia. Pope Benedict XVI is a former soldier of, my idol, Mr. Adolf Hitler. :)
-
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 14:46:24
It wasn't much because of health problems. It might have been a wake up call for him, but his spokesman said it was a spiritual decision. Which makes me wonder if he feels that he's no longer worthy of leading because of something he did or didn't do, or if he's loosing faith in Catholicism.
-
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 14:49:02
Probably growing tired of little boys buttholes.
-
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 15:13:06
I find it funny how people tend to forget that the pope is human. He can fall ill like any other person and can get weaker like any other person.
-
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 15:16:29
realty surprising decision, the church is very conservative so I'm surprised they allowed that
-
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 15:55:10
I am glad he is gone. To be honest I was hoping someone would shot him, but I think this is a more peaceful solution. Lets hope the next one is not such an asshole.
-
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 17:02:10
fang wrote: To be honest I was hoping someone would shot him
ahhahhahaha you read my mind -
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 17:50:52
i was shocked to see this. aw well. stuff happens
-
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 19:07:26
@Sekai I don't think you guys are religious since I have seen both of your comments Sekai and are not too pleased about it <_<. Fang, u hoped he was shot? What did he do to you for you to wish someone dead :?. I found out about this before also, kind sad news, there might be more reasons that he might not wanted to share :hmm:.
-
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 19:28:08
Escorpio123 wrote: @fang @Sekai I don't think you guys are religious since I have seen both of your comments Sekai and are not too pleased about it <_<. Fang, u hoped he was shot? What did he do to you for you to wish someone dead :?. I found out about this before also, kind sad news, there might be more reasons that he might not wanted to share :hmm:.
It's true I am not religious.That doesn't mean I don't have respect for it. The issue with the pope is that I am mad for about he said. [B]Pope: "gay marriage threatens foundations of family life and destroys the 'very essence of the human creature'" "Gay People Aren’t Fully Developed Humans[/B][B]" [/B] [SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]He is not just ag[SIZE=2]ainst [SIZE=2]ga[SIZE=2]y marriage, he F*CKING hates them. In that way [SIZE=2]he loses all my respect as a hu[SIZE=2]man being[SIZE=2], but [SIZE=2]this[SIZE=2] is not just a normal person[SIZE=2]. This is the pope[SIZE=2], [SIZE=2]if he speaks[SIZE=2], he speaks from the church[SIZE=2]. [SIZE=2]People are going to believe this guy[SIZE=2], people are going to follo[SIZE=2]w. It is just pathetic[SIZE=2]. [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE] [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE] [/SIZE] -
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 19:56:03
fang wrote: [B]Pope: "[B]gay marriage threatens foundations of family life and destroys the 'very essence of the human creature'[/B]" "Gay People Aren’t Fully Developed Humans[/B][B]" [/B]
In the first line "[SIZE=2][B]gay marriage threatens foundations of family life and destroys the 'very essence of the human creature'[/B]", He meant that by gay people getting married, family will be hard and different, imagine the children or the adopted children, they are going to wonder “Why do I have 2 fathers?, why don’t we have a mom?”. And also there is no acceptance in the Bible of the Gay people ‘cause God created the man and the woman was created to be the man’s company, not another man to be the love of another man. Just like Vagina was created so the penis enters and both have pleasure. The Butt was created to poop, not for the penis to enter , it was not designed for this :?. Lol, perhaps, I explained too much hehe :P. Oh in the second line… [B]Gay People Aren’t Fully Developed Humans[/B] Scientists have found out that gay people have a tendency to like the same sex because there is failure of development in them. There is always one of the gay couple that has opposite hormones, for example, 2 guys, one guy has female hormones or not hormones but something, Idk how to explain, or has its mind centered as female, which is why, he has an attraction of a man. So, with this being said, again, yes, Gay People aren’t fully developed Humans because they have an error inside of them, but it is not their fault, BUT IT HAS BEEN PROVEN, scientifically -_-. I don’t hate them though :no:, I know a couple of them, I don’t care what people said, I can get along with them :hmm:. @Hippo2626 Am I correct with some info? :) -
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 20:17:45
i knew this would be a terrible thing to post on upsb... or any site for that matter.
-
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 20:40:07
Reason wrote: i knew this would be a terrible thing to post on upsb... or any site for that matter.
No, it is not terrible. People will never agree on religious, sports matters ;). -
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 20:45:05
I am amazed that a mindset like yours is still accepted to this day and age @Escorpio123. Oh it is scientifically proven that black people aren't fully developed humans, their brains are just different/smaller. but it's not their fault and i have nothing against them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASF0rzfSvEc
-
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 20:53:10
Illuminati.
-
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 20:54:27
I thought the pope was sworn to his duties until death but it seems as if resigning, while uncommon, is allowed. Whether Catholicism is still relevant in today's world is a different matter, although it does have 1 billion adherents.
-
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 21:06:43
Escorpio123 wrote: Scientists have found out that gay people have a tendency to like the same sex because there is failure of development in them. There is always one of the gay couple that has opposite hormones, for example, 2 guys, one guy has female hormones or not hormones but something, Idk how to explain, or has its mind centered as female, which is why, he has an attraction of a man. So, with this being said, again, yes, Gay People aren’t fully developed Humans because they have an error inside of them, but it is not their fault, BUT IT HAS BEEN PROVEN, scientifically -_-.
sources please. "There is always one of the gay couple that has opposite hormones" do you have an evidence? inb4 personal experience. Stop making generalizations and giving in to stereotypes.And also there is no acceptance in the Bible of the Gay people ‘cause God created the man and the woman was created to be the man’s company, not another man to be the love of another man.
LOL. k so the bible also says that its okay to have slaves, its a sin to eat shell fish, okay to sell your daughter, sin to cut your hair. Hmm I wonder how many of these you follow? even if I agreed with you, with your logic since gay people are not fully 'developed' they should not get equal rights/treatment. Yay for believing a book that was written hundreds of years ago which has multiple versions which contra addict each other. -------------------------------- OT : not sure why the concept of a pope still exists but ok. There have been some news about an african pope and what do you know, most christians are not too happy. I wonder why. -
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 22:00:52
Escorpio123 wrote: No, it is not terrible. People will never agree on religious, sports matters ;).
i just think posting on a public site wont get you anywhere. it simply makes me lose respect for certain people as they bicker and criticize each other. im content with my religion and i enjoy discussing it, but i see where this all is going. its a great unending disagreement that ignites bitterness and starts wars. if you dont mind i would like to refrain from responding to this thread further. -
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 22:07:09
Escorpio123;247678]In the first line "[B]gay marriage threatens foundations of family life and destroys the 'very essence of the human creature'[/B]", He meant that by gay people getting married, family will be hard and different, imagine the children or the adopted children, they are going to wonder “Why do I have 2 fathers?, why don’t we have a mom?”. And also there is no acceptance in the Bible of the Gay people ‘cause God created the man and the woman was created to be the man’s company, not another man to be the love of another man. Just like Vagina was created so the penis enters and both have pleasure. The Butt was created to poop, not for the penis to enter , it was not designed for this :?. Lol, perhaps, I explained too much hehe :P. Oh in the second line… [B]Gay People Aren’t Fully Developed Humans[/B] Scientists have found out that gay people have a tendency to like the same sex because there is failure of development in them. There is always one of the gay couple that has opposite hormones, for example, 2 guys, one guy has female hormones or not hormones but something, Idk how to explain, or has its mind centered as female, which is why, he has an attraction of a man. So, with this being said, again, yes, Gay People aren’t fully developed Humans because they have an error inside of them, but it is not their fault, BUT IT HAS BEEN PROVEN, scientifically -_-. I don’t hate them though :no:, I know a couple of them, I don’t care what people said, I can get along with them :hmm:. @fang @Hippo2626 Am I correct with some info? :)[/QUOTE] Interesting point there, but I disagree. In the first place there are already a lot of families where there are 2 fathers or 2 mothers. Mostly the children (for what I have heard) are way open minded and accept it the way it is without any problem. If we bring science in this topic: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/10/study-gay-adoptive-parents-make-great-adoptive-parents/263893/ Read this. [SIZE=1]
I completely understand that, but you don't have to worry. I won't look or talk different because someone disagree with me for a matter like this.BUT IT HAS BEEN PROVEN, scientifically
Since when does the church believe in science? That's new for me. Because science say something else about the world and stuff. Back to topic. Second point. I understand the scientific (Again, science and church, ironic or not?) perspective of gay people, but in my perspective it's not that they aren’t Fully Developed Humans but DIFFERENT developed humans. People mostly label that with "not fully development", In that way you can say as well that Einstein was not fully developed, but he was still one of the most brilliant people who walked this earth. [QUOTE=Reason wrote: i just think posting on a public site wont get you anywhere. it simply makes me lose respect for certain people as they bicker and criticize each other. im content with my religion and i enjoy discussing it, but i see where this all is going. its a great unending disagreement that ignites bitterness and starts wars. if you dont mind i would like to refrain from responding to this thread further. -
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 22:23:42
Gay people are fully developed humans, as are those who believe in invisible people who create universes. I respect any religious person, but confirming their faith in Bibia or any other book like that is pretty unhelpful. Thay are completely outdated and in some passages, unethical. I know that for the most part are a source of lessons for life, but I think there are other ways to demonstrate those ideals which inspire more respect in a serious discussion. On the topic. The pope has resigned as any other leader would do. That centuries have passed since the last time that happened something like this shouldnt be alarm. What should be is that it has passed centuries with the same structure in the church.
-
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 22:30:42
To be honest I was hoping someone would shot him
This makes me wonder if some people even put a little bit of thought into their posts. With all due respect, simply silencing certain opinions that you particularly don`t like wont get you very far and is the most primitive and ineffective approach to promote your own ideals. I personally do not know much about the views Benedikt XVI stood for, and I disagree on his opinions that I know about (gay marriage etc.). In my opinion resigning was the best thing he could do at this point in time. I really hope that with a new pope the church opens up a little to more modern views. -
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 23:37:44
Reason wrote: i just think posting on a public site wont get you anywhere. it simply makes me lose respect for certain people as they bicker and criticize each other. im content with my religion and i enjoy discussing it, but i see where this all is going. its a great unending disagreement that ignites bitterness and starts wars. if you dont mind i would like to refrain from responding to this thread further.
I don't understand why you frown on this... I think being open minded and looking at other peoples opinions with a non-judging attitude is very good for someone to learn more about the world. You may not agree with the person, and you might not look at them in the same way after speaking with them on such matters, but you can still talk about things without bringing up the subject of religion or whatever you disagree with. -
Date: Thu, Feb 14 2013 00:07:16
Escorpio123 wrote: In the first line "[SIZE=2][B]gay marriage threatens foundations of family life and destroys the 'very essence of the human creature'[/B]", He meant that by gay people getting married, family will be hard and different, imagine the children or the adopted children, they are going to wonder “Why do I have 2 fathers?, why don’t we have a mom?”. And also there is no acceptance in the Bible of the Gay people ‘cause God created the man and the woman was created to be the man’s company, not another man to be the love of another man. Just like Vagina was created so the penis enters and both have pleasure. The Butt was created to poop, not for the penis to enter , it was not designed for this :?. Lol, perhaps, I explained too much hehe :P. Oh in the second line… [B]Gay People Aren’t Fully Developed Humans[/B] Scientists have found out that gay people have a tendency to like the same sex because there is failure of development in them. There is always one of the gay couple that has opposite hormones, for example, 2 guys, one guy has female hormones or not hormones but something, Idk how to explain, or has its mind centered as female, which is why, he has an attraction of a man. So, with this being said, again, yes, Gay People aren’t fully developed Humans because they have an error inside of them, but it is not their fault, BUT IT HAS BEEN PROVEN, scientifically -_-. I don’t hate them though :no:, I know a couple of them, I don’t care what people said, I can get along with them :hmm:.
http://www.apa.org/news/press/response/gay-parents.aspx hi if you want to have a scientific argument with a medical student, feel free to argue with me since i'm on break atm i'm not in the mood to bother completely reading through the papers i did in a 10-minute search or rewording stuff, but quoted directly from: Power J., Perlesz A. et al. (2010). Understanding resilience in same-sex parented families: the work, love, play study. BMC Public Health "Despite these challenges, there is a large body of research that indicates the developmental, social and emotional outcomes for children raised in same-sex parented families are at least equal to those of their heterosexual-parented peers[30]. The studies suggest that it is processes within the family - including quality of relationships and the psychosocial well-being of parents - that contribute to higher levels of wellbeing among children, irrespective of parents' sexual orientation [4,6,7,13,30-38]. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that lesbian mothers tend to organise family and work responsibilities more equitably than heterosexual couples, which may contribute to higher levels of relationship satisfaction [4,10,30,39]. However, there are some gaps in the research on same-sex parented families. Firstly, the dominance of research focusing on outcomes for children raised in same-sex parented families means there is only a limited number of studies on the health and wellbeing of same-sex attracted parents. There is also little research on factors that support and enhance resilience in same-sex headed families [13]. What enables one family to cope in stressful situations while others struggle?" edit: also, how does having less/different hormones make you not a 'fully developed human'? some people are shorter because they have less of certain hormones which determine growth, does that make them less human than everyone else? -
Date: Thu, Feb 14 2013 01:47:18
y pope no die as pope
-
Date: Thu, Feb 14 2013 01:59:53
Good post! @i.suk :thumb:
-
Date: Thu, Feb 14 2013 03:39:31
I'm glad to see him graciously step down like that. I think it was a good decision due to his health problems. best wishes for him
-
Date: Thu, Feb 14 2013 04:20:01
Reason;247707]i just think posting on a public site wont get you anywhere. it simply makes me lose respect for certain people as they bicker and criticize each other. im content with my religion and i enjoy discussing it, but i see where this all is going. its a great unending disagreement that ignites bitterness and starts wars. if you dont mind i would like to refrain from responding to this thread further.[/QUOTE] People will never agree on Religion, Sports matters, never, this is another example. [QUOTE=i.suk wrote: http://www.apa.org/news/press/response/gay-parents.aspx hi if you want to have a scientific argument with a medical student, feel free to argue with me since i'm on break atm i'm not in the mood to bother completely reading through the papers i did in a 10-minute search or rewording stuff, but quoted directly from...
That was a good evidence, if I heard in the news before about problems that gay parents might encounter with their children is not because I have invented it. You took 10-minute research to find out about that. I'm pretty sure you can also do a 10-minute research for the disadvantages that the kids may have, I didn't mean to say IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, If you can find that in my post, I would understand, but I said, IMAGINE THE CHILDREN, They might ask themselves as they grow, why do I have 2 fathers or mothers, that's all I said :hmm:. Now for the Black people that someone commented and said that they are not fully developed, I didn't say anything about black people being not fully developed, and about the height and size differences among people are what characterize us, it doesn't mean we are not fully developed, it means we are developed to be short or tall, or fat, or skinny, but about sex preferences :?. I won't discuss about this anymore since I know and you know that we will never get into an agreement. I'm very sorry if I disturbed or offended someone here, I didn't mean it :(. @Reason -
Date: Thu, Feb 14 2013 07:30:01
OMG :O
-
Date: Thu, Feb 14 2013 08:26:18
Escorpio123 wrote: That was a good evidence, if I heard in the news before about problems that gay parents might encounter with their children is not because I have invented it. You took 10-minute research to find out about that. I'm pretty sure you can also do a 10-minute research for the disadvantages that the kids may have, I didn't mean to say IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, If you can find that in my post, I would understand, but I said, IMAGINE THE CHILDREN, They might ask themselves as they grow, why do I have 2 fathers or mothers, that's all I said :hmm:. Now for the Black people that someone commented and said that they are not fully developed, I didn't say anything about black people being not fully developed, and about the height and size differences among people are what characterize us, it doesn't mean we are not fully developed, it means we are developed to be short or tall, or fat, or skinny, but about sex preferences :?. I won't discuss about this anymore since I know and you know that we will never get into an agreement. I'm very sorry if I disturbed or offended someone here, I didn't mean it :(. @fang
I understand Escorpio123, you didn't offended me. I think it's inpossible to discuss such a thing on the web. -
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2013 10:37:22
[quote=Escorpio]I'm pretty sure you can also do a 10-minute research for the disadvantages that the kids may have[/quote] As you're presenting the argument of the Catholic Church, you should probably go ahead and do that, it'll only take ten minutes. [quote=Escorpio] IMAGINE THE CHILDREN[/quote] You seem to be under the impression that children will find something ethically wrong about their gay parents. Currently the predominate arguments about why gay parents are bad are religious. Therefore I would suggest that if a child is not indoctrinated with a religion, then they will see nothing wrong with it. It is possible that they will notice that it takes a mother and a father to have a baby and so will believe there is something naturally wrong with it. That is fine and if they believe that you can't really tell them otherwise, it's a valid view. However, I would suggest that adopted children of infertile heterosexual couples should feel the same way, as nature has also selected those two people not to be able to procreate. Either way I think a fair compromise is to simply relocate children that for some reason believe their parents are 'wrong'.
Now for the Black people that someone commented and said that they are not fully developed, I didn't say anything about black people being not fully developed, and about the height and size differences among people are what characterize us, it doesn't mean we are not fully developed, it means we are developed to be short or tall, or fat, or skinny, but about sex preferences
Saying that 'gay people are not fully developed humans' is a ridiculous assertion. What human are you using as a measuring stick to judge what 'fully developed' is? because I'm sure I can find people who are different in much more significant ways that the catholic church is fine with. [quote=Escorpio]I won't discuss about this anymore since I know and you know that we will never get into an agreement.[/quote] This statement isn't entirely true, it depends what you think you're agreeing about. It's very probably true that you'll never come to an agreement over your views of gays. However, it is indeed possible to come to an agreement over the laws concerning gays. You are free to practice your religion however you want (within reason, no suicide bombings please), and I'm not bothered about what you think gays should be able to do or shouldn't be able to do. That said, thinking that your views should determine how other people with separate views are able to live their lives is a serious flaw in logic, law, common sense, compassion and humanity. There is a big difference between "Gays should not marry" and "Gays should not have the option to marry", I have no problem with you believing the former of those two. Disclaimer: I'm not saying that gays should not give their kid a religion, plenty of religious people are accepting of gays. Additionally, I don't understand why someone would step down for medical reasons. I was under the impression that all religious people thought that if you were dying, then it was because God wanted you to die (so that he could see you in heaven or whatever). I don't understand why the Pope would do this given his mindset. On the same note I don't understand why Catholics take drugs or whatever else to try and prolong their life. These are genuine questions (well statements, but whatever) I'd love to know the answer to if anyone knows. -
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2013 11:01:37
[quote=Escorpio123]he Butt was created to poop, not for the penis to enter , it was not designed for this[/quote] We were not 'designed' for using computers, for driving cars, for eating processed foods, for going to school, for studying, for reading, for writing, for drawing. We evolved to survive by hunting, running, hiding and fighting. The defence of 'not designed for this' does not hold up at all. Also, by saying 'design' you seem to suggest we were designed, rather than evolved. Even the Catholic church and the pope accept evolution as fact now. As for the topic, who cares if he resigns? Another pope is elected, life goes on.
-
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2013 12:01:57
Mats wrote: As for the topic, who cares if he resigns? Another pope is elected, life goes on.
600 years since the last resignation. think about it. shocking. hello? -
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2013 12:11:38
Escorpio123 wrote: The Butt was created to poop, not for the penis to enter , it was not designed for this :?.
Why doesn't this apply when catholic priests fuck little boys? Which the pope knows about but doesn't really do much against? -
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2013 15:56:14
SwitchPalm wrote: 600 years since the last resignation. think about it. shocking. hello?
Hello? So I thought about it. There's only one pope at any one time, so thinking about it... The resignation rate for popes is probably about the same as the resignation rate for most jobs, it's just that the time scales are large, since only one person holds that job at any one time. -
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2013 16:08:59
Mats wrote: Hello? So I thought about it. There's only one pope at any one time, so thinking about it... The resignation rate for popes is probably about the same as the resignation rate for most jobs, it's just that the time scales are large, since only one person holds that job at any one time.
actually, i never knew the pope could resign. thats the reason it became shocking. so.. i guess the rate would be 0.00003% because most popes would live a pope but die as a pope. -
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2013 16:09:39
oops double post
-
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2013 18:47:12
SwitchPalm wrote: actually, i never knew the pope could resign. thats the reason it became shocking. so.. i guess the rate would be 0.00003% because most popes would live a pope but die as a pope.
It looks like (from a quick bit of Google) 9/264 have resigned so it's about a 3% resignation rate. If you didn't know he could resign, you clearly haven't been reading into your religion enough. :trollface: -
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2013 23:07:04
Mats wrote: It looks like (from a quick bit of Google) 9/264 have resigned so it's about a 3% resignation rate. If you didn't know he could resign, you clearly haven't been reading into your religion enough. :trollface:
okay, i know now popes can resign. but why would they resign? thats the shock factor. pope benedict resign because what? -
Date: Fri, Feb 15 2013 23:14:50
SwitchPalm wrote: okay, i know now popes can resign. but why would they resign? thats the shock factor. pope benedict resign because what?
His reason was mental and physical decline. Have you even read this story? lol I will sum it up for you - He's resigning because he's too unwell both mentally and physically to do what the job requires. yeah, that's literally the entire, worldwide news story. :rolleyes: -
Date: Sat, Feb 16 2013 05:05:49
"You took 10-minute research to find out about that. I'm pretty sure you can also do a 10-minute research for the disadvantages that the kids may have, I didn't mean to say IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, If you can find that in my post, I would understand, but I said, IMAGINE THE CHILDREN, They might ask themselves as they grow, why do I have 2 fathers or mothers, that's all I said " the 'i'm pretty sure you can do quick research for the disadvantages' is a common line used by people who don't research much themselves :P my search was not done specifically for advantages or disadvantages, the only keyword i used was 'homosexuality' (although, as the articles i found stated, more research is required to find the factors accounting for the observed results; as well as larger sample sizes for same-sex parent couples' children) also, children querying 'why do i have 2 fathers/2 mothers' in the 21st century would be comparable to children of the 1960s asking 'why are black and white people separated' during segregation in USA of that time, it's an issue for the parents themselves to explain for the current context (like explaining 'where do babies come from?' or 'why do bad things happen to good people', avoiding explanations is hardly a valid reason to take a certain stance on any given issue) @Escorpio123
-
Date: Sat, Feb 16 2013 06:37:19
Hail Satan
-
Date: Sat, Feb 16 2013 08:30:39
Vassenato;248043]Hail Satan[/QUOTE] your face :p [QUOTE=Mats wrote: Have you even read this story?
:facepalm: thats why i made this thread and why do you make me lol hard sometimes? your hilarious. -
Date: Sat, Feb 16 2013 11:55:43
@Escorpio123 Surely having two parents, regardless of their gender, is far better than having just one parent, a situation far too many kids are finding themselves in.
-
Date: Tue, Feb 19 2013 23:47:56
Mats wrote: [B]His reason was mental and physical decline.[/B] Have you even read this story?
Mats, what do you think about this: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/14/pope-allegedly-sought-immunity-for-abuse-crimes-just-before-resigning/ http://itccs.org/2013/02/14/pope-benedict-to-seek-immunity-and-protection-from-italian-president-giorgio-napolitano-on-february-23/ http://itccs.org/2013/02/16/roman-church-admits-the-popes-guilt-joseph-ratzinger-to-evade-justice-and-hide-out-in-the-vatican-for-his-own-legal-immunity-and-protection/ -
Date: Wed, Feb 20 2013 01:22:03
This thread was really interesting to read. This type of stuff brings out the best and worst of UPSB.
-
Date: Tue, Feb 26 2013 14:12:51
Unfortunately, after skimming through this I think Escorpio is being a little too blunt about the situation of Homosexuals in general. Please understand Im a Catholic, but I also have friends who happen to have that orientation. Ultimately the Catholic position is that we should love Homosexual people, but are are not entitled and it is unlawful (or a sin) to do, or encourage, any homosexual act. To those who are Atheist, Agnostic, or believe in a different Religion to Christianity, then of course Escorpio's reasoning's will seem odd or you may be quick to ridicule him. In that case its hard to argue any thing, particularly using biblical evidence. Ill make some quick points that I hope everyone should take note of: 1. [B]The only official teachings that are dogmatically applied for the Pope are when the Pope is speaking in "ex cathedra", in his full authority. The Pope is not sinless, and can make mistakes, including any statements of his which can be personal and in error. Please do not take every odd quote from the Pope as what the Catholic Church officially believes. [/B] 2. People often bring the subject of slavery as an example of how the Church is "inconsistent". I think people jump to conclusions too much with far too little knowledge of the history or context of the matters. [QUOTE=GEddie]Slavery existed everywhere at the time of the Bible; scripture nowhere urges its abolition. There are rules in the Bible concerning how slavery should be dealt with. then again, Joseph was a slave, yet rises to become No. 2 in the country; and in the NT, St Paul urges that Philemon not only release his slave but accept him as an equal. While the Bible does not urge an end to slavery, it arguably is the first religious text which demands they be treated as human beings. This in itself was a giant leap upward. [/QUOTE] Theres a discussion about it here: [URL="http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=351454"[/URL] So before people keep shooting accusations at the Church, at least read both sides before anything. :/ Ive found theres always a reasonable answer for everything in the Catholic Church if people bothered to research both sides. 3. For someone to actually "hope" that the Pope gets shot, to me is quite appalling, and its quite a touchy subject to us Catholics...considering the John Paul II, the Pope before, did actually get shot in an assassination attempt. (The Pope later forgave him). With regards to the homosexual situation, ultimately there is a line in what should be unified and what should not. Most people would agree that not every type of Marriage is acceptable. The Church draws on what it believes to be an invalid unison by reason and faith, not by the Bible alone and certainly not by emotion alone. The Catholic Church is not just some blind, old school, arbitrary bits of people all wrapped up together. It is an institution that has lasted for the past 2 millennium. There is no other institution on earth that has that pedigree and history. That by itself is a wonder because it means there is a consistent, direct link to what we claimed to what has happened (ie in the NT) We encourage Skepticism, questioning and reasoning. Ill try my best to answer things.
-
Date: Tue, Feb 26 2013 14:46:29
neoknux_009 wrote: Ultimately the Catholic position is that we should love Homosexual people, but are are not entitled and it is unlawful (or a sin) to do, or encourage, any homosexual act.
This is as outdated as slavery.So before people keep shooting accusations at the Church, at least read both sides before anything. :/ Ive found theres always a reasonable answer for everything in the Catholic Church if people bothered to research both sides.
A major flaw in the bible is that this seems to hold up so true. There is a reasonable answer for everything, including conflicting ideas. You can almost argue anything anyway if you ignore the other side.The Catholic Church is not just some blind, old school, arbitrary bits of people all wrapped up together. It is an institution that has lasted for the past 2 millennium. There is no other institution on earth that has that pedigree and history. That by itself is a wonder because it means there is a consistent, direct link to what we claimed to what has happened (ie in the NT) We encourage Skepticism, questioning and reasoning. Ill try my best to answer things.
Slightly (majorly) ignorant of the other religions and religious texts that predate the bible (and that the bible and Christianity are almost certainly based upon). -
Date: Wed, Feb 27 2013 10:03:03
Mats;249402]This is as outdated as slavery. [/QUOTE] Catholics believe that Objective Morality can never be outdated. The Church does not conform to society and treat what we believe, right and wrong, as some kind of democracy. [QUOTE=Mats;249402] A major flaw in the bible is that this seems to hold up so true. There is a reasonable answer for everything, including conflicting ideas. You can almost argue anything anyway if you ignore the other side. [/QUOTE] Of course you can argue anything. But I think people are quick to draw the red flag the second a religious idea is argued for. [QUOTE=Mats wrote: Slightly (majorly) ignorant of the other religions and religious texts that predate the bible (and that the bible and Christianity are almost certainly based upon).
I never said that other Religions never predated the bible. Im trying to express that currently, Catholics have a very long, if not the longest, lasting consistent and same institution. -
Date: Sat, Mar 9 2013 10:28:01
neoknux_009 wrote: Im trying to express that currently, Catholics have a very long, if not the longest, lasting consistent and same institution.
Actually, Christianity is probably in the middle ground of religion in terms of how long it has existed , pre-dated by (for example) Taoism, Buddhism, and Judaism which remain major religions today. I think you are being ignorant of religions such as these when you say " Catholics have a very long, if not the longest". Christianity has been constantly chopped and changed throughout its history. Even now, it's having to change to adapt and survive in an ever more rapidly changing world. Many of the teachings, such as slavery or not wearing two fabrics together, are now completely ignored and currently (in the UK at least), the forbidding of a man lying with another man is coming under heavy fire (since it is now unlawful for the church to discriminate against anyone applying for a position in the church due to their sexuality). In fact, it's also illegal in the EU to discriminate against religion. I'm quite sure if an Islamic person applied for the post of bishop and they could prove their application was rejected on the grounds of their religion, the courts would find the Catholic Church guilty of discrimination... (weird as fuck eh?). So anyway, it's not the longest lasting and it's also not consistent. You don't seem to know a great deal about your own religion? :? Anyway, all that was quite civil and reasonable, but I will finish with what Richard Dawkins would suggest. Scrap your religion. Religion is outdated, surpassed by science. We have no need to pray to the heavens for a good harvest or good health, we now have farms and hospitals, readily available food and doctors. We see ever more examples of major religions having major flaws and they become ever less relevant (to the point of getting in the way) as time goes on. It's time to stop using blind faith to believe in a poorly written book that was written in a time when the Earth was believed the centre of a tiny universe, chosen by God for us to have our rule over, when the most basic of current high school mathematics was known only to the scholars at the forefront of the subject, when society was unimaginably disconnected and countries and borders great distances apart. It's time to accept the new world and leave the old, incorrect teaching behind. -
Date: Sat, Mar 9 2013 16:00:06
Mats;250803]Actually, Christianity is probably in the middle ground of religion in terms of how long it has existed , pre-dated by (for example) Taoism, Buddhism, and Judaism which remain major religions today. I think you are being ignorant of religions such as these when you say " Catholics have a very long, if not the longest". [/QUOTE] I'll give you this point. I cannot find a reference to back this up explicitly. I may have been mixing this up with my Protestant discussions, in which I know for a fact the Catholic Church is the longest and first Christian denomination. Ill continue to try to dialogue with your other points. [QUOTE=Mats wrote: Christianity has been constantly chopped and changed throughout its history. Even now, it's having to change to adapt and survive in an ever more rapidly changing world.
We are not talking about the whole of Christianity (ie every Christian Denomination). I'm aware of the vast splits in Christianity, its estimated over 30000 different denominations exist. Its unfortunate, and the Church is working on it. However, as for the Catholic Church, it may be changing in its presentation, but never in its official Dogma. People will usually bring up a practice or custom that used to be practiced, compare it to now, then say look at that its different, its changed.Many of the teachings, such as slavery or not wearing two fabrics together, are now completely ignored and currently (in the UK at least), the forbidding of a man lying with another man is coming under heavy fire (since it is now unlawful for the church to discriminate against anyone applying for a position in the church due to their sexuality).
I've noticed you've quoted the Old Testament. Christians are not, and never were bounded to the Old Testament Law, we are bounded to the New Testament law. Catholic Church Doctrine and Dogma explain and teach the Law that was revealed and fulfilled to them by Jesus. [B]Revealed and Fulfilled[/B] is the key word here. This is evident and emphasized particularly in the Gospels when Jesus himself endorses what seems to be breaking the Old Testament in Matt. 12 (Ok, im aware you may not believe in the bible, but since we are arguing about consistency) when his disciples began to pluck heads of grain and eat it and the Pharisees see's at as breaking the law, but soon after Jesus explains his Authority and reasoning. In Paul's letters you can also see several direct statements concerning the exact problems of people still following the old law, and Paul correcting them by teaching them about the New Covenant. I can give some analogies in today's society. When your young, you have to to school and get an education. While at School, you are under the School's System and you are taught to follow them. Perhaps you have to wear a uniform, and Perhaps you have to even have a Ribbon in your hair if your a girl. When you graduate however, your not bound to go to School anymore. Your not under that system. When you walk into a school and your a parent not a student, you don't have to wear a uniform or go to class at 9 AM. You are however still bounded to the greater Law of the Country you are in. Just like how School (while seemingly like a terrible miserable place to many) ultimately prepares us for our life after we Graduate, the whole point of the Old Covenant was to prefigure the better, superior and simpler New Covenant. Secondly, we must understand the difference between Church Dogma, Doctrine, Customs and Practices.Dogma is that teaching/belief which is unerringly defined by Church authority for all time as G-d's revealed truth to mankind. Dogma issues forth when the Church is forced to set a teaching in stone - normally as a defense against heresy. All Dogmas were once doctrines. Doctrine carries the same weight, as long as it is contained within the normal magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church. Doctrines have not had to be defined as dogma yet, and may never be, unless challenged by heretics. Doctrines and dogmas do not change, and may also be known as "big T Traditions" - the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles, which was handed on to succeeding generations of Christians as part of the deposit of faith. Discipline regulates the actions of the priesthood or the laity. Discipline is subject to change, without affecting doctrine or dogma. Abstinence from eating meat on Fridays is an example. That can change, and has changed. It is also flexible depending upon a person's age, health, etc. Discipline can also be known as "small t tradition." Practice and custom apply to the lesser affairs of the Church. They may fall under the broad category of disciplines, since they can change, from time to time. [HTML]http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=593544[/HTML]
So anyway, it's not the longest lasting and it's also not consistent. You don't seem to know a great deal about your own religion? :? In fact, it's also illegal in the EU to discriminate against religion. I'm quite sure if an Islamic person applied for the post of bishop and they could prove their application was rejected on the grounds of their religion, the courts would find the Catholic Church guilty of discrimination... (weird as fuck eh?).
The Church has well defined its Doctrine with regards to what is acceptable in terms of right and wrong for sexual relations. It just happens to also be explicitly written in the Old testament. While we don't follow their consequences, there is scripture in the New Testament regarding homosexuality, and that's a great (but not final and only) test to see which Old Testament teachings (such as the Natural Law) are still valid. I don't deny there are other Christian denominations slipping, and probably many that accept homosexual relationships as perfectly ok creating contradicting views on the matter. These contradictions in beliefs is their problem, and as you can see that system does not work nor make sense for 2 Denominations with contradicting views to be in harmony. As for the Roman Catholic Church however, it wont change and never has. It would not make sense for an moral absolute truth to be valid one day, and not valid the next. That is the whole point of the system, but that is the beauty of the system as well. People may seem to look at the Church's Teachings as old fashioned and dated...perhaps...but at least at the same time the Church's teachings are Consistent, and they stick to their word. An Anchor, if you must, which indeed looks funny and strange, hit on again and again in the storm that is the rapid and ever changing society.Anyway, all that was quite civil and reasonable, but I will finish with what Richard Dawkins would suggest. Scrap your religion. Religion is outdated, surpassed by science. We have no need to pray to the heavens for a good harvest or good health, we now have farms and hospitals, readily available food and doctors. We see ever more examples of major religions having major flaws and they become ever less relevant (to the point of getting in the way) as time goes on. It's time to stop using blind faith to believe in a poorly written book that was written in a time when the Earth was believed the centre of a tiny universe, chosen by God for us to have our rule over, when the most basic of current high school mathematics was known only to the scholars at the forefront of the subject, when society was unimaginably disconnected and countries and borders great distances apart. It's time to accept the new world and leave the old, incorrect teaching behind.
Why is faith and Science always put against each other like they are binary opposites? Strange...without faith you wouldn't have much progress at all. The Greek word for Faith can be translated roughly as trust as well. ->Imagine if you didn't trust all those experiments your other fellow scientist did...It would be unreasonably inefficient to repeat all 1000000 trials and experiments for every assumption you make in a your own experiment just to trust them. ->Axioms by their definition, are just a means of faith. A trust, if you will, that something is true with no means of justification. Even with Farms and Hospitals and teachers, all because you have the means to do something hardly means you have the reason to do something. What is moral, right and wrong, purposeful is not answered by Science. Catholics don't like unreasonable faith just as Scientist don't like unreasonable science. Faith can be reasonable, and that's why I continue to be a Catholic, because the Church itself continues to give reason and explanation for its being and doctrine. Fun fact, Catholicism is not based on the Bible Alone. Yes look at the bible, but look at history, look at where it all started, and make sure you encapsulate it with reason. [video=youtube;Xe5kVw9JsYI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe5kVw9JsYI[/video] -
Date: Sun, Mar 10 2013 21:34:15
neoknux_009 wrote: as for the Catholic Church, it may be changing in its presentation, but never in its official Dogma.
Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_MaryPeople will usually bring up a practice or custom that used to be practiced, compare it to now, then say look at that its different, its changed.
Well yes, exactly. As I have above.I've noticed you've quoted the Old Testament. Christians are not, and never were bounded to the Old Testament Law, we are bounded to the New Testament law. Catholic Church Doctrine and Dogma explain and teach the Law that was revealed and fulfilled to them by Jesus.
Yes, you're correct. I shall try to avoid the old testament.As for the Roman Catholic Church however, it wont change and never has. It would not make sense for an moral absolute truth to be valid one day, and not valid the next.
Why not?but at least at the same time the Church's teachings are Consistent, and they stick to their word. An Anchor, if you must, which indeed looks funny and strange, hit on again and again in the storm that is the rapid and ever changing society.
->Imagine if you didn't trust all those experiments your other fellow scientist did...It would be unreasonably inefficient to repeat all 1000000 trials and experiments for every assumption you make in a your own experiment just to trust them.
Science encourages repetition of experiments. Why do you think the world wash awash with rumours last year that Einstein's theory of relativity may have been disproven? That theory is over a century old and yet still today, we test it. I'm sure every scientist would love to see a million trials of every experiments (in fact, I'm quite sure there are many experiments that have had variations done more than a million times), but this just isn't practical. Science asks for you to believe only what there is substantial evidence for and also believes in taking very seriously even one single case of evidence against a 'proven' theory. In fact, many scientists and people who follow the teachings of science and not of religion, do not think anything is proven, only for there being substantial evidence for that truth over all others.Even with Farms and Hospitals and teachers, all because you have the means to do something hardly means you have the reason to do something. What is moral, right and wrong, purposeful is not answered by Science.
Do you not consider psychology and sociology to be science? Lastly, I ask you to consider this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqB3F6N527U As a partial aside to this discussion, what is the Roman Catholic Church's position on the issue of evolution? -
Date: Wed, Mar 13 2013 04:43:56
Mats wrote: Do you not consider psychology and sociology to be science?
A lot of people would dispute whether these are sciences, at least in the traditional sense. It wouldn't be uncommon to see these disciplines listed under the Arts - not Science - faculty at a university. -
Date: Wed, Mar 13 2013 09:47:05
Tialys wrote: A lot of people would dispute whether these are sciences, at least in the traditional sense. It wouldn't be uncommon to see these disciplines listed under the Arts - not Science - faculty at a university.
Wow that just isn't right. I can't believe that. :facepalm: People here do pick on them a bit for not being proper science, but they are proper science and are treated as such in the universities here. -
Date: Wed, Mar 13 2013 23:44:15
Ok so the new pope isn't black. Discuss.
-
Date: Wed, Mar 13 2013 23:49:20
Argon_City wrote: Ok so the new pope isn't black. Discuss.
There aren't very many black people in Italy. :dunno: