Habemus Papam

Rez · Post by **Rez** » 19 Apr 2005, 17:59

Weve got a new pope. Ratzinger. A german (yeah!) but conservatively (

) cardinal. What do you think about the conclave and the pope?

milagros · Post by **milagros** » 19 Apr 2005, 18:46

nothing
isnt it first german pope?

Rez · Post by **Rez** » 19 Apr 2005, 18:54

nope. there were some before him. but i duno what i should make of the new pope. bcs in WW II he was at the HJ (i dont know how t translate this. Hitler youth maybe).

Post by **SveinR** » 19 Apr 2005, 19:19

Rez wrote:nope. there were some before him. but i duno what i should make of the new pope. bcs in WW II he was at the HJ (i dont know how t translate this. Hitler youth maybe).

Just say Hitler Jugend. That's basically what it is called everywhere. Anyway, didn't most kids have to be in some sort of organization like that at the time?

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 19 Apr 2005, 19:26

Yes, practically it was compulsory , and you can't conclude any things from that.

What you can say, is that having a pope is already maximum conservative.

Yes, earth is the core of the universe!1

Rez · Post by **Rez** » 19 Apr 2005, 19:29

but i hope hell change his mind. because he was a good friend of john paul the scnd. Maybe he will go on like him (i hope he will

). But im not really concerned because im protestant

Post by **SveinR** » 19 Apr 2005, 19:43

Rez wrote:but i hope hell change his mind. because he was a good friend of john paul the scnd. Maybe he will go on like him (i hope he will ). But im not really concerned because im protestant

Well John Paul II was also pretty conservative in the traditional catholic views.

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 19 Apr 2005, 19:45

John Paul II was in fact really conservative indeed.

Rez · Post by **Rez** » 19 Apr 2005, 19:55

but i heard benedikt is even more conservative than john-paul

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 19 Apr 2005, 20:59

Oh the agony. I wonder who of us here is catholic?
I bet you could call it "Habant Papam"

DamRho · Post by **DamRho** » 19 Apr 2005, 22:42

tijsjoris wrote:Oh the agony. I wonder who of us here is catholic?
I bet you could call it "Habant Papam"

I don't think it's a question of being catholic or not. The pope always was a politically influential figure in worldwide diplomacy so I guess we should care who is selected for pope. Anyway, it's true that nowadays worldwide leaders don't give that much of a credit to the pope's opinion than the leaders of before did but you can't deny that it is an influential figure, regardless of your religion (or lack of religion in my particular case).

dudek · Post by **dudek** » 19 Apr 2005, 22:49

tijsjoris wrote:I bet you could call it "Habant Papam"

well, it should be "Habent", but that doesn't matter

Dynamo · Post by **Dynamo** » 19 Apr 2005, 23:28

seems odd how he was the favorite and still became pope...usually doesnt work that way

Revolt · Post by **Revolt** » 20 Apr 2005, 10:58

hes number XVI :O

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 20 Apr 2005, 17:55

dudek wrote:
tijsjoris wrote:I bet you could call it "Habant Papam"
well, it should be "Habent", but that doesn't matter

Ofcourse, mind my bad latin skills, only 3 years wasted on it...

I even forgot these forms after one year already.

Anyway, DamRho, you have a point there. And when I see some of his lines, I am quite surprised.

Homosexualism is a bad thing, contraceptions have dug in the real goal of mating, feminism has made a gap between man and woman..

Ofcourse, this was what John Paul was also saying, but I think this whole thing is so much deprecated!

DamRho · Post by **DamRho** » 20 Apr 2005, 18:48

tijsjoris wrote:
dudek wrote:
tijsjoris wrote:I bet you could call it "Habant Papam"
well, it should be "Habent", but that doesn't matter
Ofcourse, mind my bad latin skills, only 3 years wasted on it...
I even forgot these forms after one year already.

Anyway, DamRho, you have a point there. And when I see some of his lines, I am quite surprised.

Homosexualism is a bad thing, contraceptions have dug in the real goal of mating, feminism has made a gap between man and woman..

Ofcourse, this was what John Paul was also saying, but I think this whole thing is so much deprecated!

I think the catholic church hasn't actually realised some things that it will eventually come to realise, and those questions you've said are amongst them. Namelly homosexuality and contraception is something that the church will have to accept very very fast; people nowadays are less shy about their sexual orientation than they were in the past (and they should be! to each is own, if people like other people from the same sex it's their problem and no one else's!) and with the sexually transmitable diseases that we all know of nowadays it's surprising the church's current position on contraception. The women's (absent) role in the church and the priest's being celibatary is also some of the aspects I don't particularly agree with and I think are a bit old-fashioned but I guess it's a matter of time before things chance as well. Pro-choice in the abortion issue was also something that I would like to see but this is a more personal opinion and I can see why people are against it so I don't think it's as much of a priority as the other issues. In the end, it's not much "who is the current Pope?" but "is it time to change yet?". I don't think they have the political courage (because yes, religion leadership is politics) to condone some of the above as of this moment so the Pope is still much more a "symbolic" figure than a "leader" IMO. But I'm not Catholic so who the hell am I to talk about it...

lol

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 20 Apr 2005, 20:39

Well, you said that it even mattered for non-catholics, the pope. I agree with you, that it is the main question to ask "isn't it time for some changes?", but while asking that, you might review the characteristics of the pope himself. As you can see, it makes a difference wether you have conservative or a progressive pope. It's not because of fear of his own image that Ratzinger is being conservative, I believe.

Although church may have quite some power when speaking about politics, it doesn't go beyond the state of leadership. Any discussions in the church about these risky things are eliminated and put down.

In my really own opinion it's just one big mafia clan, supporting on minors, being corrupt and so forth.

And as a country, the vatican is one of those diehard dictatorships on the world.

dudek · Post by **dudek** » 20 Apr 2005, 22:43

tijsjoris: Oh no, don't say "wasted years", when spent in on Latin. Latin rulez.

DamRho: Ye, quite reasonable opinions to me.

sierra · Post by **sierra** » 20 Apr 2005, 23:42

Organised religion as a whole is going through an identity crisis. As Darmho rightly says, the church needs to adapt to the changing world, but if it did so it would cease to fulfil its purpose of upholding Biblical values.

Let's just scrap religion and save ourselves the bother.

hugoo · Post by **hugoo** » 21 Apr 2005, 10:54

bad selection

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 21 Apr 2005, 19:48

Sierra, one thing Ratzinger says:

"God created the universe, then there came the big bang"

Quite another story of the 4004 BC etc.
But that's like all that is a little progressive.

And if I had a genie in a bottle, I'd wish for one thing to stop, and that is religion.

dudek wrote:tijsjoris: Oh no, don't say "wasted years", when spent in on Latin. Latin rulez.

Latin sucks. A fucking fake language. Greek, though, is superior.

dudek · Post by **dudek** » 21 Apr 2005, 22:48

tijsjoris wrote:And if I had a genie in a bottle, I'd wish for one thing to stop, and that is religion.

well, but it helps many many ppl ... maybe teh organizers are bad, but teh religion itself is a good thing, nat?

tijsjoris wrote:Latin sucks. A fucking fake language. Greek, though, is superior.

hehe

I study both Latin and ancient Greek, and so it's nice to see at least one of them is valuable for you.

teajay · Post by **teajay** » 22 Apr 2005, 14:25

I'd wish I hadn't forgotten to describe that I meaned those religion which don't accept other religions. I don't think they have brought us more good than bad things.

alietje · Post by **alietje** » 27 Apr 2005, 20:18

Pope = bad
I can't change my opinion, cause he's a conservative old man again, like usual, so I wasn't surprised, and I think it's better if he lived a few hundred years ago.
I'm sorry for all the catholic people here, but I can't change my opinion. Something that really irritates me, is that a woman cannot have any function in the catholic church, ARE ALL WOMAN BAD, ARE THEY STUPID?
I myself never want to have a function in a church, but I think this should be possible for a woman as well.

ribot · Post by **ribot** » 27 Apr 2005, 20:43

most christians are hypocrites because they do exactly what jesus protested against.

Juble · Post by **Juble** » 29 Apr 2005, 10:40

People think they can change a religion, if they allow homosexuals for example in the catholic church, they will be doing exactly what the bible says not to do, and people are upset for that. they want to keep the tradition that has been through many hunderds of years. Can't you see that(?).

Its simple, follow the rules of the bible and go to heaven or dont follow them and go to hell.

if there was jesus today, he would be upset about the world we live in.

the pope is doing his job well.

DamRho · Post by **DamRho** » 29 Apr 2005, 19:26

Juble wrote:People think they can change a religion, if they allow homosexuals for example in the catholic church, they will be doing exactly what the bible says not to do, and people are upset for that. they want to keep the tradition that has been through many hunderds of years. Can't you see that(?).

Its simple, follow the rules of the bible and go to heaven or dont follow them and go to hell.

if there was jesus today, he would be upset about the world we live in.

the pope is doing his job well.

The Bible is not a rulebook, it's a metaphoric work of fiction, and the problem is that people don't see it that way.

The_BoneLESS · Post by **The_BoneLESS** » 29 Apr 2005, 19:44

DamRho wrote:
Juble wrote:People think they can change a religion, if they allow homosexuals for example in the catholic church, they will be doing exactly what the bible says not to do, and people are upset for that. they want to keep the tradition that has been through many hunderds of years. Can't you see that(?).

Its simple, follow the rules of the bible and go to heaven or dont follow them and go to hell.

if there was jesus today, he would be upset about the world we live in.

the pope is doing his job well.
The Bible is not a rulebook, it's a metaphoric work of fiction, and the problem is that people don't see it that way.

Actually, the 10 commands are pretty clear for me...

milagros · Post by **milagros** » 29 Apr 2005, 20:14

ye, dont fuck with girls dammit

sierra · Post by **sierra** » 29 Apr 2005, 20:35

The_BoneLESS wrote:
DamRho wrote:
Juble wrote:People think they can change a religion, if they allow homosexuals for example in the catholic church, they will be doing exactly what the bible says not to do, and people are upset for that. they want to keep the tradition that has been through many hunderds of years. Can't you see that(?).

Its simple, follow the rules of the bible and go to heaven or dont follow them and go to hell.

if there was jesus today, he would be upset about the world we live in.

the pope is doing his job well.
The Bible is not a rulebook, it's a metaphoric work of fiction, and the problem is that people don't see it that way.
Actually, the 10 commands are pretty clear for me...

what Damrho says is right. too many people get fixated on the content of religions without appreciating the context.

let me give you an analogy. across the world there are many languages, all which have different words for 'snow'. is it right to fuss over whose word is correct, when each word still means the same thing?

those who understand religion know it as a spiritual journey, a love for God through an identity, not for the purposes of the identity. Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism and so forth are vehicles on the path to eternal love, they are not eternal love in themselves.

I, incidentally, do not believe in God

DamRho · Post by **DamRho** » 29 Apr 2005, 22:39

The_BoneLESS wrote:
DamRho wrote:
Juble wrote:People think they can change a religion, if they allow homosexuals for example in the catholic church, they will be doing exactly what the bible says not to do, and people are upset for that. they want to keep the tradition that has been through many hunderds of years. Can't you see that(?).

Its simple, follow the rules of the bible and go to heaven or dont follow them and go to hell.

if there was jesus today, he would be upset about the world we live in.

the pope is doing his job well.
The Bible is not a rulebook, it's a metaphoric work of fiction, and the problem is that people don't see it that way.
Actually, the 10 commands are pretty clear for me...

The 10 Commandments are also NOT a rulebook! They are again a metaphor to separating good from evil. Things like "you should not steal" are the Bible's way of saying: you should be good, being evil will not bring you happiness. The 10 Commandments are, therefore, only 10 obvious forms of "evil" that are universally viewed as being "evil" and therefore easy to transcribe into a rule-like context.

Everything in religious literature is meant to be in a metaphoric context; they don't want to impose you the belief that Moses received two stones with rules from God himself although many people conceive the Bible that way. The idea is that you should realise that there are things that are universally wrong, and happiness is only achieved by living with your peers in equality, without harming each other. The Bible could either have "and you should be happy and live in harmony with your peers" or "Moses went to the top of Mount Sinai where he received two stone tablets from God himself". Which one do you think will inspire more people, and get the message through better?

Fact is, Catholicism started as an ancient form of a perfect Socialism. I view it more, in its historical context, as a political current than a religious one. What happened is that people listen more to paranormal things particularly when they're going through a hard stage of their lives, as all hebrews who lived in that region of the globe at the time, than to scientific and political leaders. Unfortunately, Catholicism evolved into a hypocrit religion where it's religious leaders bathe in gold. It was inevitable, it is sad, but it's the truth.

Sparrow · Post by **Sparrow** » 1 May 2005, 13:16

i don't really c how could they pick someone that was in hitler jugend even if it was a must do at that time.

i am ortodox so i really don't give a fuck about pope. didn't like last one, don't like this one, and i probably wont like next one

Post by **SveinR** » 1 May 2005, 16:14

All German men born around 1925-1930 are evil.

Juski · Post by **Juski** » 1 May 2005, 21:47

Sparrow wrote:i don't really c how could they pick someone that was in hitler jugend even if it was a must do at that time.

i am ortodox so i really don't give a fuck about pope. didn't like last one, don't like this one, and i probably wont like next one

You actuly belive this:

SveinR wrote:All German men born around 1925-1930 are evil.

Habemus Papam

Habemus Papam

POPE = BAD