When you think about death, do you lose your breath
or do you keep your cool?
Would you like to see the Pope on the end of a rope
do you think he's a fool?
xxxxxxx said:
What would it mean to believe that Catholicism is true, and to be its supreme representative, and not believe, and be willing to say, that it is the one true faith, superior absolutely or at least to some degree, to all other religions?
You can blame a religion for existing, but given that it exists, it makes no sense to blame it for claiming to be uniquely true. This isn't poetry class. This is about the ultimate nature, meaning and purpose of life, the world, soul, eternity, and everything.
If I believed in some religion, I would not feel comforted by its highest officials declining to state categorically that I'd picked the right one.
Thank you.
I feel the same way. I'm not Christian (or in particular, Catholic) but these reforms don't seem that bad. The quote about Islam was needlessly offensive, that I agree with. But saying a prayer for those who aren't of their religion and are therefore refused salvation? Put yourself in their shoes and try to buy into their religion for just a moment. All bullshit about tolerance and acceptance aside, if your religion is the one true path for salvation, isn't it a kindness to pray that others find this one true path as well?
It's like discovering birth control and praying that everyone else figures it out too.
xxxxxxx said:
What would it mean to believe that Catholicism is true, and to be its supreme representative, and not believe, and be willing to say, that it is the one true faith, superior absolutely or at least to some degree, to all other religions?
You can blame a religion for existing, but given that it exists, it makes no sense to blame it for claiming to be uniquely true. This isn't poetry class. This is about the ultimate nature, meaning and purpose of life, the world, soul, eternity, and everything.
If I believed in some religion, I would not feel comforted by its highest officials declining to state categorically that I'd picked the right one.
Thank you.
I feel the same way. I'm not Christian (or in particular, Catholic) but these reforms don't seem that bad. The quote about Islam was needlessly offensive, that I agree with. But saying a prayer for those who aren't of their religion and are therefore refused salvation? Put yourself in their shoes and try to buy into their religion for just a moment. All bullshit about tolerance and acceptance aside, if your religion is the one true path for salvation, isn't it a kindness to pray that others find this one true path as well?
It's like discovering birth control and praying that everyone else figures it out too.
Look, if ALL they did was pray for the rest of us to "see the light," that would be fine. I'd smile and humor them. But open your eyes! These people have a long, ugly, violent history of attempting to impose their absolute beliefs on everyone else. As John Keats described the first European settlers of the new world in his book, "Eminent Domain:" "Off they went, with the cross painted on their sails, praying every hour, firing off guns to the glory of God and His saints, and thoughtfully taking with them morions, breastplates, crossbows, swords and spears to help them do God's Will..."
So whenever they start declaring the righteousness of their cause again, in whatever forum, maybe you'll understand why some of us rush to man the barricades.
Ferretbite said:
I don't think there's any need to discuss the unfortunate comments about the muslims which were taken out of context and misinterpreted, [...]
The only way this could've been taken out of context is if he'd immediately preceded it with, "I'd have to be a fucking nut to say ..."
And I'm stealing this, of course. From an interview with Al Franken <http://dir.salon.com/story/people/feature/2002/04/20/franken/index.html>:
This was on Robertson's show, "The 700 Club." But then later Falwell said he was misquoted.
He didn't say he was misquoted; he said he was taken out of context. Somewhere here I have the [transcript from "The 700 Club"] ... Here it is. He said: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"
That was Falwell speaking to Pat Robertson?
And Pat Robertson said, "I totally concur." That's what he said. And so immediately after [Falwell] said it was taken out of context, I got the quote. My biggest laugh has been that the only way [the quote] could have been taken out of context is if he immediately preceded it with, "I'd have to be a fucking nut to say ..."
Cigarette said:
The Catholic Church thinks it's the "one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church"? No! How can this be? It's unthinkable!
I know! Who knew, right? It's certainly not, like, written into the Mass or anything like that.
59
GIJAKE
Apo, AE
June 2007
JUL 14, 2007 10:56 AM
I just love being Catholic and a soldier and a member of this site... It all fits together so well.
You can dislike the man as much as you want; it's that whole freedom of religion thing. He is doing the same thing that he has always done, keeping the Catholic faith the same as it was centuries ago. There is no new 2007 model; Vintage Catholicism is how he rolls.
When the Pope makes a pronouncement, whether ex cathedra or off the cuff, its effect is not only among obedient Catholics but on the world political and cultural stage. Scores of his predecessors have insured this to be the case. So when a Pope - notably a Central European one who formerly had even the most tenuous ties to the Nazi movement - tries to turn the clock back to a more comfortable time, i.e., when Catholics didn't need to think for themselves, to revive a liturgy that speaks, in any language, of "the blindness of this (Jewish) race", I believe the most vehement expressions of outrage are entirely appropriate.
John Paul II was, doctrinally, very conservative, but he also had a discernable spirituality and also had some tact and political savvy. People loved him even when he was dangling them over the gaping jaws of hell. But Ratzinger... to counter the claim of one poster, is a brilliant man and a scholar, but seems coldly intellectual and rigid. And the College? They knew exactly who they were electing. His career as theological "hatchet man" was spectacular and very well known. His election, mere months after the Nov. 2004 US tragedy, had me depressed for days.
It's easy for us in the enlightened First World to dismiss the ramblings of a reactionary Pope, but there are 100's of millions of other "obedient Catholics" who are hanging on every word.
phrogg said:
When the Pope makes a pronouncement, whether ex cathedra or off the cuff, its effect is not only among obedient Catholics but on the world political and cultural stage. Scores of his predecessors have insured this to be the case. So when a Pope - notably a Central European one who formerly had even the most tenuous ties to the Nazi movement - tries to turn the clock back to a more comfortable time, i.e., when Catholics didn't need to think for themselves, to revive a liturgy that speaks, in any language, of "the blindness of this (Jewish) race", I believe the most vehement expressions of outrage are entirely appropriate.
John Paul II was, doctrinally, very conservative, but he also had a discernable spirituality and also had some tact and political savvy. People loved him even when he was dangling them over the gaping jaws of hell. But Ratzinger... to counter the claim of one poster, is a brilliant man and a scholar, but seems coldly intellectual and rigid. And the College? They knew exactly who they were electing. His career as theological "hatchet man" was spectacular and very well known. His election, mere months after the Nov. 2004 US tragedy, had me depressed for days.
It's easy for us in the enlightened First World to dismiss the ramblings of a reactionary Pope, but there are 100's of millions of other "obedient Catholics" who are hanging on every word.
very well said.
although i'm doubtful as to how enlightened the first world is.
geo35 said:
So whenever they start declaring the righteousness of their cause again, in whatever forum, maybe you'll understand why some of us rush to man the barricades.
phrogg said:
It's easy for us in the enlightened First World to dismiss the ramblings of a reactionary Pope, but there are 100's of millions of other "obedient Catholics" who are hanging on every word.
To the extent that either of these comments was directed to me, I urge you to note my comment about "blaming a religion for existing" in the first place. I am not excusing the pope one bit. What I'm saying is that I don't think that any religion, given its very nature, has the conceptual resources to advocate pluralism or tolerance. The modern reluctance to burn people at the stake is a purely pragmatic concession. Tolerance and pluralism simply make no sense if you sincerely believe the claims of a religion (most of them, anyway). That is partly why they are so dangerous.
Maybe he should send a bunch of terrorists out kill, blow up, or terrorize everyone who isn't catholic! Then claim they are not practicing true Catholicism, and do nothing!
Or he could have the Vatican State steal some land and start launching missiles at every around them to stop 'terrorism'.
WyattForMayor said:
Gee who would have thought this is what you get when you make a NAZI a pope...
Oh come on, in fairness it works wonders for their PR, after all nothing screams intolerant, hatemongering ignoramuses than electing a member of the Hitler youth as your supreme ruler.
I hope that was sarcasm. If you're actually seriously playing that card as if that was relevant, need I even point out that just about EVERYONE was part of Hitler's Youth?
It'd be like saying "What do you expect blah blah blah he was a soldier in the army!" about someone who was forced to join the army because of a conscription law.
xxxxxxx said:
What would it mean to believe that Catholicism is true, and to be its supreme representative, and not believe, and be willing to say, that it is the one true faith, superior absolutely or at least to some degree, to all other religions?
You can blame a religion for existing, but given that it exists, it makes no sense to blame it for claiming to be uniquely true. This isn't poetry class. This is about the ultimate nature, meaning and purpose of life, the world, soul, eternity, and everything.
If I believed in some religion, I would not feel comforted by its highest officials declining to state categorically that I'd picked the right one.
xxxxxxx said:
What would it mean to believe that Catholicism is true, and to be its supreme representative, and not believe, and be willing to say, that it is the one true faith, superior absolutely or at least to some degree, to all other religions?
You can blame a religion for existing, but given that it exists, it makes no sense to blame it for claiming to be uniquely true. This isn't poetry class. This is about the ultimate nature, meaning and purpose of life, the world, soul, eternity, and everything.
If I believed in some religion, I would not feel comforted by its highest officials declining to state categorically that I'd picked the right one.
Do I blame bears for being the blood thirsty killing machines that they are? No. But that doesn't mean that I don't realize that they are our #1 threat. And it certainly does not mean that I'm just going to give them my picnic basket.
Funny how a man can declare that which only God can decree. Organized religion as a whole has been tainted by the intrinsic evil that resides within every man. Just because a Prophet has a different color skin than you does not mean that his message is any less true.
If the archaic dinosaur that is the Catholic Church were really the "Ideal religion," why is it that they just shelled out $656 Million dollars in California alone to settle sexual abuse cases? What's truly staggering is that they even have that kind of money to begin with. Less staggering but no less concerning is that this was just in one state, there are after all, 49 others in the Union.
Maybe the Pope should try getting hip, and instead of forcing all new conscripts into his "Army of God" into a life of celibacy, offering them the ability to enter into a marriage which is after all the most holy union under God. This would certainly be more productive, and more "Christian" than chastising others for their own beliefs, which are no less meaningful to their followers than his.
geo35
Minneapolis, MN
January 2003
JUL 14, 2007 05:34 AM