Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: Thoughts on the new pope

  1. #1

    Default

    [This thread has been split off from the 'what makes you smile' thread, as it's about religion, and history on the forum (and in the outside world) shows that it can get a bit heated) and leads to the opposite of smiles]
    Last edited by MOD Sam; 16 Feb 2013 at 08:39 PM.

  2. #2
    Prolific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific Member horse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wibbleshire
    Posts
    4,284

    Default

    New Pope, not overly keen on the current one, too many things have been badly handled and too much dogma when a lighter touch was required. Not entirely his fault but still ultimately he has to be the one responsible for the failures of many.

  3. #3

    Default

    Don't agree with how the Pope lives anyway, very hypocritical.

  4. #4
    Prolific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific Member horse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wibbleshire
    Posts
    4,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carrothead View Post
    Don't agree with how the Pope lives anyway, very hypocritical.
    A CEO of any large company would get the same. Perhaps the bling isn't in tune with today's ideals but you don't get to choose what you inherit, you just have to take care of it for future generations. I'm sure the Queen doesn't need 50 bedrooms either, how dare she sponsor numerous charities.
    Last edited by MOD Sam; 16 Feb 2013 at 08:40 PM. Reason: removed bit outside the debate

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by horse View Post
    A CEO of any large company would get the same. Perhaps the bling isn't in tune with today's ideals but you don't get to choose what you inherit, you just have to take care of it for future generations. I'm sure the Queen doesn't need 50 bedrooms either, how dare she sponsor numerous charities.
    No but the ideals are the same. They're the head of the church, they should do something about it. No lavish living, sell all works of art, where's the need in them?

    I'm not anti-religion or anything. I just hate the structure, power and hypocrisy behind it.

  6. #6
    Prolific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific Member horse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wibbleshire
    Posts
    4,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carrothead View Post
    No but the ideals are the same. They're the head of the church, they should do something about it. No lavish living, sell all works of art, where's the need in them?
    Popes have long since stopped being the playboys of polite society and the Vatican is no longer the absolute political power it once was, but reinventing itself as a new cult of sackcloth and ashes isn't going to achieve anything worthwhile. For that matter the Queen has works of art that have never been loaned out for public viewing, it's not really reason enough to demand her head.

    I'm not anti-religion or anything. I just hate the structure, power and hypocrisy behind it.
    Any organisation that is hundreds of years old will have a certain amount of historical baggage and a set of accepted ways of doing things. We have a monarchy, whereas younger nations do quite well without any castles at all.
    A religion is expected to uphold certain ways of doing things, so any change which seems trivial to a secular world (like women bishops or gay marriage) is a huge issue to accommodate for a religion. They are more adept at resisting change, because in reality the world according to most religions is in moral decay and this must be opposed. You wouldn't expect the world in it's turn to happily accept this viewpoint.
    Both sides influence each other, I would suggest that to expect priests to remain unmarried and celibate in an age of the exact opposite is a bit of an anachronism for the church. Yet nothing is likely to change for decades. Although where change is possible (like the use of condoms) it happens regardless of the public message.
    Other things also clash with the modern world, we now expect everything to be open and publically justifiable, whereas the church has always been secretive and centralised.

  7. #7
    Banned Banned Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Trolling Forum
    Posts
    1,703

    Default

    Don't recall the Queen being expected to follow any kind of example, except that of other Queens. Tend to live in big houses, lord it over the proles, own lots of bling. The Pope is supposed to be the Vicar of Christ. Don't know if you remember him, but he was famous for railing against greed and avarice, owned squat, not big on luxury. Hypocritical only applies to one of these. Ratzinger was also head of the inquisition, a protector of paedophiles, a bigot, and a bully. Trouble is, he and his predecessor stuffed the College of Cardinals full of similar bigots. We're going to get another homophobic, misogynistic boot-boy to blight the lives of millions all over the globe. Yay for organised bigotry.

  8. #8

    Default

    What Moog said ^

    The monarchy have made changes in the past and are now mainly tourism generators. They don't govern the country and don't give out out-dated views and say that everyone should live with nothing.

    "...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

    So when the Pope and all his friends are sitting in his big city with everything they could possibly need, all the money, all the priceless artworks, they're not really on Jesus' good side. They're not spreading true Christianity, they've formed a system that's benefited themselves like men through the ages with religion, making up rules and passing them off as the will of God.

    I have no problem with people using religion to help people, or having religion for hope of a sense of well being. Anyone who takes the Pope seriously, however, is going down the wrong path.

  9. #9
    Prolific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific Member horse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wibbleshire
    Posts
    4,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moog View Post
    Don't recall the Queen being expected to follow any kind of example, except that of other Queens. Tend to live in big houses, lord it over the proles, own lots of bling. The Pope is supposed to be the Vicar of Christ. Don't know if you remember him, but he was famous for railing against greed and avarice, owned squat, not big on luxury. Hypocritical only applies to one of these. Ratzinger was also head of the inquisition, a protector of paedophiles, a bigot, and a bully. Trouble is, he and his predecessor stuffed the College of Cardinals full of similar bigots. We're going to get another homophobic, misogynistic boot-boy to blight the lives of millions all over the globe. Yay for organised bigotry.
    So all Christians have to live in small houses then ? Well, boxed ticked for me then.
    The Pope has frequently spoken out on poverty, and what is he supposed to own exactly ?
    You really are just chucking in a lot of words without sources.

    The needle verse refers to the spiritual poverty of the rich man, not that being rich itself is bad, just that you won't get to heaven without God as wealth means nothing.
    I'm pretty sure the Church is very active in helping people, although really it exists mainly to promote the word of God.

    As for the next one, I'm a bit disappointed that it is being seen as a nationalistic thing as if this will reflect well on their country if chosen. I will agree with Moog in that there has been a promotion of traditionalists and this will likely influence the decision. It's the same problem that the CofE had, with the ABish trotting out ideas that were then rapidly misunderstood by the general public.

    When the Pope started talking about intrinsic moral disorders and other obscure theological issues, then maybe he should have checked which group had the most media support first.

  10. #10
    Cloud Strife

    septimus ii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by horse View Post
    The needle verse refers to the spiritual poverty of the rich man, not that being rich itself is bad, just that you won't get to heaven without God as wealth means nothing.
    Yes, it's not necessary to live on the streets to be a Christian, but the more wealth (of any variety - money, power, talent, popularity, etc) you have, the more difficult it is to be humble with it. Out of curiosity, I wonder if that was a factor in his decision to retire.

    I disagree with the Catholic church on some fairly fundamental theological points, and on some fairly important practical points, but I respect the current Pope, and as far as I can tell, he's a Christian. I hope the new appointee is as good.

  11. #11
    Pigeon boy 93ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,714

    Default

    Moderator Comment: MOD Ross
    As you are all entitled to an opinion on this subject; can I please remind you that discriminating specific social, religious or ethnic groups will not be tollerated on the forum.

    Cheers.

  12. #12
    Active MemberActive MemberActive Member The Analyst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East Riding Of Yorkshire
    Posts
    718

    Default

    What I came across recently, I found very amusing and it means there is hope for me yet (I do not believe in God btw)

    Within the C of E synod there is a group (I cannot remember the name and I did google) that do not beleive in God, they believe in living a good life with good morals but do not actually believe in God. I don't know about anyone else but I found this surprising/shocking and also very amusing (possibly because I am a non believer)

  13. #13

    Default

    So in other words, they're just a group of good people?

  14. #14
    Honoured Teuton MemberHonoured Teuton MemberHonoured Teuton MemberHonoured Teuton Member PinkFairyKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sheffield
    Posts
    1,621

    Default

    Wait, what religion is everyone here?

  15. #15
    Cloud Strife

    septimus ii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOD Ross View Post
    Moderator Comment: MOD Ross
    As you are all entitled to an opinion on this subject; can I please remind you that discriminating specific social, religious or ethnic groups will not be tollerated on the forum.

    Cheers.
    Fixed for you

    Quote Originally Posted by The Analyst View Post
    What I came across recently, I found very amusing and it means there is hope for me yet (I do not believe in God btw)

    Within the C of E synod there is a group (I cannot remember the name and I did google) that do not beleive in God, they believe in living a good life with good morals but do not actually believe in God. I don't know about anyone else but I found this surprising/shocking and also very amusing (possibly because I am a non believer)
    Don't worry - I'm a believer, and I also find it very amusing (though sadly not shocking )

  16. #16
    Anonymous the third
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PinkFairyKing View Post
    Wait, what religion is everyone here?
    I'm agnostic but married into an Irish Catholic family. I had to sign an agreement when I got married for my children to be brought up as Catholics. They are all baptised and confirmed. My husband goes to church every Sunday. I went with him and his family to mass in Ireland. It was one of the most disturbing things I have ever witnessed. The good part was we all fell into the pub afterwards.

    I had a lovely visit from two very polite old gentlemen a couple of days ago who wanted to discuss their beliefs with me. They were so nice I felt really mean turning them away. They were Jehovah's witnesses, but they were so nice I found it hard to reconcile the public image of Jehovah's witnesses with two such pleasant men.

    I don't object to anyone having any religion or believing anything they want to. I do object to anyone trying to force their beliefs on others or using it as an excuse for violence or oppression. Most of the war and bloodshed throughout the centuries has been in the name of religion. We never seem to be able to get past that, no matter how "educated" or "civilised" we become.

    Edit: Since Sam moved it and more in context - I think the Catholic church has a lot to answer for in recent times, not least it's contribution towards the spread of AIDs in Africa.
    Last edited by Anonymous the third; 16 Feb 2013 at 09:01 PM.

  17. #17
    Avatar Winner jawwwwsh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    I personally refuse to give any respect to an organization that continues to persecute and belittle innocent members of the public based on their life choices, for example homosexuals, and who will still to this day refuse to allow females to gain any position of power within their organization. Any other company would be sued in to oblivion, but they are fine as they can cower behind the idea of 'religion'. So I guess I couldn't give two hoots who is currently running it, the previous pope was a bigoted, self preserving Nazi, and I'm sure the next one will be much the same

  18. #18
    Anonymous the third
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jawwwwsh View Post
    I personally refuse to give any respect to an organization that continues to persecute and belittle innocent members of the public based on their life choices, for example homosexuals, and who will still to this day refuse to allow females to gain any position of power within their organization. Any other company would be sued in to oblivion, but they are fine as they can cower behind the idea of 'religion'. So I guess I couldn't give two hoots who is currently running it, the previous pope was a bigoted, self preserving Nazi, and I'm sure the next one will be much the same
    To be fair, that isn't just Catholics. There aren't many religions that allow women into the priesthood, nor who accept any kind of sexual deviation from the standard heterosexual model. Jehovah's witnesses were taken to court a few years ago for refusing to allow their dying daughter to have a blood transfusion that would save the child's life.

    The more worrying religions are the ones who have the widest influence and breed the most fanatical followers. You could argue over which has had the most detrimental effect on society in the past twenty years, it would be hard to find a "winner" on that score.

  19. #19
    Avatar Winner jawwwwsh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous the third View Post
    To be fair, that isn't just Catholics. There aren't many religions that allow women into the priesthood, nor who accept any kind of sexual deviation from the standard heterosexual model. Jehovah's witnesses were taken to court a few years ago for refusing to allow their dying daughter to have a blood transfusion that would save the child's life.

    The more worrying religions are the ones who have the widest influence and breed the most fanatical followers. You could argue over which has had the most detrimental effect on society in the past twenty years, it would be hard to find a "winner" on that score.
    Oh yeah, totally agree. I'm not hating on just Catholicism here, I did say "religion"

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous the third View Post
    Edit: Since Sam moved it and more in context - I think the Catholic church has a lot to answer for in recent times, not least it's contribution towards the spread of AIDs in Africa.
    Jawwwwwsh, mmmm, while I think it's horribly short-sighted, unfortunately, it's not just limited to religion - plenty of boardrooms for example are still closed off in practice (but of course not at lower levels). One problem with a very old religion with a broad hierarchy is that change is very slow - this gives them a certain strength of not giving in to whims, but the downside means they tend to lag modern society by a few decades.

    Meme - strictly speaking, I'm not sure they've contributed to AIDS, but they've certainly limited attempts to constrain its spread (v. pedantic I know). The worst, although I think it's eased now, was when, during BUsh Jr's term, funds to help prevent AIDS was only available for those which promoted abstinence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •