“…Any idiot can have kids, so what is you point? You have kids? See. Point proved…”
Ouch…
Mufasa
I love religous threads…
dear jackzepplin.
i am not being ignorant, you are blinkered. as far as not wanting to educate me, then thats fine, but you cannot level that insult at me.
As far as i see, you are unquestioning of your faith or whatever it is…
…this can only lead to ignorance.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
miniross wrote:
See this is just a cop out. i have the conviction to stand and make conversation, this is just demonstrating that you have a lack of knowledge. This attitude would be best demonstrated by those that follow any sort of dogma, and follow blindly and do not question.
except that you’re kicking a sensitive area at a really bad time.
Look, I’m not religious or catholic. But I admire him as a man and feel saddened by his death.
JackZep posted a pretty good article, I assume you read it?
[/quote]
These are the only times when such issues are raised. look at the recent tsunami disater. previous to that, such things could never be on an adgenda.
i read the article, the political achievements may warrant some admittance of recognition, but many stood up to such totalatarianism and for an individual who has been in such influence, he should be doing those things.
as far as ecumunical and eclisiastical sections, they are like stating that a great chairman restructured the culture and mechanisms in his company. this is not of a world wide benefit.
As far as being a sensative time, then yes, possibly. but when else would we address such issues.
WRT “any idiot can have children” comment, i think that just about says it all. What i mean is that it is the only thing in passing on your genes.
the only evidence that “any idiot can have children” is the prat who posted it, reinforced by previous comments.
also, the refusal to notice such things as contraception which has led to the ignorant death of millions in africa and south america is of such gravity that any other positive steps would be insignificant in comparison.
Hopefully he will die peacefully and we can get on with our lives without hinderence. Maybe the catholic church will get its house in order and pull itself into the modern era.
[quote]miniross wrote:
dear jackzepplin.
i am not being ignorant, you are blinkered. as far as not wanting to educate me, then thats fine, but you cannot level that insult at me.
As far as i see, you are unquestioning of your faith or whatever it is…
…this can only lead to ignorance.[/quote]
Ahhh Grasshoppa, keep trying. You’re not convincing anyone here that you’re anything other than what I’ve leveled against you.
Faith and admiration of a man are different things.
I can assure you that the Church is in order, except for some of the arrogant Westerners that think they can do it on their own.
Have a good life. If you want to talk fitness, then feel free to address me. As for discussing your opinion of the Pope or the Catholic Church, I’m through with you.
I love how the one post says that the pope stands against the evils of consumerism-give me a break!!!
Has anybody ever seen that pimped out crib he calls the vactican?
There is enough gold, marble, and silver in that place to feed the entire world 5 times over.
Why hasn’t he scrapped the joint and used the proceeds to pay for the raising and care of all of these “lives” he doesn’t want aborted?
Puff Daddy would kill to have half the bling bling that the pope and his crew wear.
I for one don’t admire John Paul at all. His policies have little in common with the very man he worships.
Jesus was a rebel, and was killed for being so. If John Paul lived in the spirit of Jesus, we would have seen reform during his time in the office.
Where are the women priests?
Where are the the rights of priests to marry?
I could come up with a dozen other examples of John Paul dropping the ball when it comes to changing the church.
John Paul has been a member of the party line his entire stay as pope. There is nothing significant about him as he has wasted the opportunity of a lifetime to make real change in the world.
I also don’t admire a man who sees suffering, especially long standing suffering, as a virtue. It’s bad enough that he is masochistic enough to believe this, but he then encourages it in others through his teachings. There is nothing virtuous about sufferings. I have recently seen a friend of mine die of cancer and there is nothing glorious about it. It sucks, it’s pain, and it’s no good. Maybe it is to the Church’s advantage to promote suffering as a virtue-get people to buy into the fact that having a child whom you cannot possibly take care of is a good thing because suffering is a virtue.
Don’t worry that people in africa are dying of starvation and genocide while the Catholic Church makes MTV’s cribs look like a homeless shelter, because suffering is a virtue.
[quote]miniross wrote:
He shold thank him for having a bad shot. And it’s not like he launched a full blown attempt to get the man releaes. forgiving him did nothing to change the shooters situation.
[/quote]
As it shouldn’t have. Attempted murder deserves it’s due justice. But if someone shot me and I was the pope, I’d say “Go to hell, ya bastard” and not “I forgive you for your misguided ways”.
[quote]miniross wrote:
hedo wrote:
miniross wrote:
juice
Please feel free to educate me on this. Persuade me that i am wrong, and demonstrate his accomplishments. i have a sense of history, i am english!
A history of intellectual cosmopolitanism perhaps.
Hasn’t it got you Brits in enough trouble over the years.
The man lived an accomplished life. Trying to tarnish it with silly comments diminishes you, not him.
This is not answering my question.
i have no reputation to tarnish, it is shit anyway.
I am not trying to tarnish it, just make valid points that differ from yours.
also, who hasn’t had an accomplshed life, especially if you have children. tha is all there is, you know. everything else counts s fluff.[/quote]
Miniross
Haven’t you denied or attempted to refute everything that has been said to you…I mean what’s the point.
Many of us admire the man. Many of us have children, and it is a great accomplishmnet no doubt. However, what is annoying is that the pope is generally well thought of as a great leader and man of conviction. All admirable qualities. Except by you for some reason. That is why you draw attacks from all quarters.
It may not be politcally correct or popular among the liberal classes and most Europeans but many of us find it OK to admire people for fine leadership and an accomplished life.
Well he just died…
[quote]miniross wrote:
juice20jd wrote:
miniross wrote:
juice
Please feel free to educate me on this. Persuade me that i am wrong, and demonstrate his accomplishments. i have a sense of history, i am english!
you are wrong. end of story.
trying to educate or persuade someone who obviously has ill-founded opinions based on pure ignorance/lack of knowledge/intelligence is a complete waste of my time.
i’ll leave it to those with more patience and tolerance.
have a nice day.
See this is just a cop out. i have the conviction to stand and make conversation, this is just demonstrating that you have a lack of knowledge. This attitude would be best demonstrated by those that follow any sort of dogma, and follow blindly and do not question.[/quote]
not a cop out, just the simple truth. its not my fault that you are obviously mentally/intellectually challenged…and you are definately WITHOUT conviction.
and don’t insult me by assuming that my attack on your ignorance concerning the pope and his life acheivements represents a “blind follower of dogma”. what basis do you have for an idiotic assumption like that??? you have used that moronic statement to try and cover-up and divert attention from the fact that you are in over your head on a subject you have obviously little if no applicable/useful knowledge to contribute.
where in any post did i contend that i was catholic? or a follower? a believer? faithful? the answer is nowhere. the points made were based on history and facts…tangible things.
again i maintain my position on your ignorance, as many others have echoed.
my guess is you have used your statements as a lure to go trolling for people to disagree and have arguments with. me thinks you get off on it…
and…i’m out.
Millions of people in South America and Africa die of AIDs because they’re uneducated and don’t understand what diesese is or how its transmitted. Stupidity is killing them, not lack of rubbers. Most people in the Church use contraception for Christ sake, and over 80% of American Catholics think its completely fine. If people in Africa were educated of the risks and didn’t have rampant unprotected sex, there wouldn’t be the problem. Tracing it to the pope is so full of logical fallacies that… Bleh.
On the topic of the Church being pimped out and being attractive. Wasn’t it Jesus himself that had no qualms about accepting perfume that could’ve been sold to feed the hungry while letting himself get his feet washed and annointed? I don’t know about you, but if it was good enough for Jesus, well its good enough for me.
Women in the Church, or priests marrying? Its fairly clear you don’t have a very rudimentary knowledge of how the Church works (Not that mine is advanced in any degree). Things take time to develop. Vatican II changed things that had been brewing for hundreds of years. The Church moves in a cautious, methodical way. It does not change on whims or feelings of generations. When there is sound scholarly proof on why women should be priests or they should marry then there will be a response to it.
Trying to belittle the Pope’s achivements is laudable. As been said before, anyone can find a plethora of good works this man has done for humanity. Why don’t we start belittling Ghandi’s works next?
[quote]MikeShank wrote:
I love how the one post says that the pope stands against the evils of consumerism-give me a break!!!
Has anybody ever seen that pimped out crib he calls the vactican?
There is enough gold, marble, and silver in that place to feed the entire world 5 times over.
Why hasn’t he scrapped the joint and used the proceeds to pay for the raising and care of all of these “lives” he doesn’t want aborted?
Puff Daddy would kill to have half the bling bling that the pope and his crew wear.
I for one don’t admire John Paul at all. His policies have little in common with the very man he worships.
Jesus was a rebel, and was killed for being so. If John Paul lived in the spirit of Jesus, we would have seen reform during his time in the office.
Where are the women priests?
Where are the the rights of priests to marry?
I could come up with a dozen other examples of John Paul dropping the ball when it comes to changing the church.
John Paul has been a member of the party line his entire stay as pope. There is nothing significant about him as he has wasted the opportunity of a lifetime to make real change in the world.
I also don’t admire a man who sees suffering, especially long standing suffering, as a virtue. It’s bad enough that he is masochistic enough to believe this, but he then encourages it in others through his teachings. There is nothing virtuous about sufferings. I have recently seen a friend of mine die of cancer and there is nothing glorious about it. It sucks, it’s pain, and it’s no good. Maybe it is to the Church’s advantage to promote suffering as a virtue-get people to buy into the fact that having a child whom you cannot possibly take care of is a good thing because suffering is a virtue.
Don’t worry that people in africa are dying of starvation and genocide while the Catholic Church makes MTV’s cribs look like a homeless shelter, because suffering is a virtue. [/quote]
…and the ignorance continues…
Your statements lay out that you obviously know nothing about Pope John Paul II.
You’re an easy target, but in the spirit of peace, I’ll leave it at this for now.
Pick up a book and read a little about the Pope and his works, then we can talk. That goes for anyone that has the nerve to bash John Paul The Great.
This Pope, although I admire him, history will probably show destroyed the Roman Catholic church.
He chose to be hard line about issues that weren’t theologically critical (birth control and married clergy) and by the way, John Paul I is was expected was going to allow limited forms of birth control, the problem is, the Catholic church has come to believe that sex is evil, and if you’re not doing it for procreation, you shouldn’t do it at all. And for married clergy-it was the norm until around 1200, and there are married priests in the Roman Catholic church who came over from the Episcopal church today. He let his emotions about his fiancee’s death blind him here.
Then he went and made a joke out of the idea of saints by making more saints than all of the other Pope’s combined. Remember, they used to require 3 miracles-and no card tricks!
I think he was one of the most egotistical human beings in history. I don’t dislike him or anything, but that’s what happens when you see yourself as the sole channel between God and the Church.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
This Pope, although I admire him, history will probably show destroyed the Roman Catholic church.
He chose to be hard line about issues that weren’t theologically critical (birth control and married clergy) and by the way, John Paul I is was expected was going to allow limited forms of birth control, the problem is, the Catholic church has come to believe that sex is evil, and if you’re not doing it for procreation, you shouldn’t do it at all. And for married clergy-it was the norm until around 1200, and there are married priests in the Roman Catholic church who came over from the Episcopal church today. He let his emotions about his fiancee’s death blind him here.
Then he went and made a joke out of the idea of saints by making more saints than all of the other Pope’s combined. Remember, they used to require 3 miracles-and no card tricks!
I think he was one of the most egotistical human beings in history. I don’t dislike him or anything, but that’s what happens when you see yourself as the sole channel between God and the Church.[/quote]
Destroying the Church?!? Sole channel between God and the Church? This is getting silly.
I agree with the sainthood thing. I think he coulda just beatified a bunch and called it a day to recognize the quality of their lives and work.
How is birth control not theologically critical? The Church has a well-constructed view that sex serves a dual purpose and to block one of the purposes is to abominate the act. It fits into the entire argument that the Church has. You’d have to redefine the purpose of sex (theologically) to change the birth control. Not to mention most people don’t even really follow this. Theres a large rift between teaching and what actually happens. Almost everyone is a cafeteria Catholic.
Married priests… meh… I’m indifferent. And not very familiar with the subject so I won’t address it.
Has the whole process of reuniting Christianity that Pope John Paul II was working on been ignored?
Hey thanks John Paul the Great. Due to your archaic policies on contraception we are all now Aids Orphans.
I guess the whole “premarital sex thing” ain’t working to well.
Yeah, the guy is a real genius.
Here is another picture of an african woman dying of aids. I guess her speech could go something like this:
“Hey John Paul the great, thanks for your progressive policies on contraception, especially in africa. Now I too have aids. The church says it is a sin to use contraception, but look where that got me.The church does a great job taking care of me now that I have aids, giving me plenty of food and water and medical care.
I wonder where they were before this, before I actually needed them. I guess they had no reason to help me when I had no need for them. But now I am dependent on the church to help keep me alive. Sounds like a great way to boost the flocks numbers!”
[quote]Garrett W. wrote:
Destroying the Church?!? Sole channel between God and the Church? This is getting silly.
How is birth control not theologically critical? The Church has a well-constructed view that sex serves a dual purpose and to block one of the purposes is to abominate the act. It fits into the entire argument that the Church has. You’d have to redefine the purpose of sex (theologically) to change the birth control. Not to mention most people don’t even really follow this. Theres a large rift between teaching and what actually happens. Almost everyone is a cafeteria Catholic.
[/quote]
Well, as for the “sole channel” statement, before Vatican II the Roman Catholic church had a theological statement that Christ exists in 3 modes: with the father, in the eucharist and in his body-the church. After Vatican II that was rewritten as with the father, in the eucharist and in the person of his Vicar the Pope.
Also, there was a rumor when John Paul I died mysteriously that he was going to amend Humana Vitae to allow forms of birth control which did not occur post fertilization (this is almost certainly true) and a further rumor that he was poisoned by the Jesuits because birth control took away some of their power in third world countries (this is harder to believe but not beyond the realm of reason).
And when you’ve got hundred of closet gay priests having sex with children, the “Abomination” of birth control sounds a little bit strange to me.
MikeShank:
I would greatly appreciate it if you’d go start your own thread–title it “Thank Fucking God The Pope Is Dead” for all I care, but please have your bullshit in another thread.
That way, people that agree with you can post there, people that don’t can go and argue, and this one can be left to be NOT a venemous tirade against the man.
How’s that?
Thanks,
Joe Weider,
Father of Modern Bodybuilding and Powerlifting.
The Catholic church’s efforts in Africa have been, IMO, basically useless simply because of the fact that the church does not believe in birth control. It’s a simple equation: People in Africa are starving. Adding more kids means a greater need for food. Ergo, have less kids. Oh yeah, and telling people don’t do the naughty is REALLY going to work. Birth control would solve many of the world’s problems. Perhaps if priests actually had to get married and support families I’d listen to what they had to say. As of now, whatever priests say has carries zero credibility in my book.
Having said all that, JP II did some good things. I have plenty of criticisms about the church, but I’m not so one-sided in my views that I can’t see the good side.