Joffa
New Member
They elected a new Pope rather quickly. What do you guys think of this Ratzinger? Will he make a good Papa for us?
~Joffa
~Joffa
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
All Hail Benedict XVI
- Thread starter Joffa
- Start date
I dont like the idea of calling a mere human "holy father." Thats one of the biggest things that annoys me about the Catholic Church; they raise up the pope to the level of Jesus and God.Bigkarch said:
Grizzly
New Member
How do you know he's not? Wasn't the Jews' problem with Jesus that he was a man claiming to be divine? Maybe the Pope really does speak directly to God and it is through His(meaning god) machinations that his specific, chosen person is voted upon and chosen to be the next Pope, the mouthpiece of god on earth. It's all just "god's plan". That's just as likely and just as believable as any of the other tripe.
CyniQ
New Member
The Pope is supposed to be a successor to the Apostle Peter. Peter was, according to scripture, bestowed on occasion with the power to perform miracles. One particular time some witnesses to a miracle bowed to him, Peter ripped his garments and said that as a mere human he did not deserve such honor. The Pope regularly accepts these sorts of displays. Bowing, ring kissing, and the like are tantamount to worship which should be reserved for the Almighty. The Papacy is an abomination. Was that too blunt?? 
Besides, Ratzinger himself is a pathetic excuse for a leader. He didn't have the courage to stand up for what he believed, so he joined the Hitler Youth. Some say he did it for the discounted tuition, either way... Then to get out of the Hitler Youth he joined the Army. He then deserted the Army. He makes commitments having no intention of following through with them. So he is a liar. He claims to believe in something he hasn't the guts to stand up for. So he is a coward.
Besides, Ratzinger himself is a pathetic excuse for a leader. He didn't have the courage to stand up for what he believed, so he joined the Hitler Youth. Some say he did it for the discounted tuition, either way... Then to get out of the Hitler Youth he joined the Army. He then deserted the Army. He makes commitments having no intention of following through with them. So he is a liar. He claims to believe in something he hasn't the guts to stand up for. So he is a coward.
CyniQ
New Member
Grizzly said:
It may well be believeable. Either the Bible is the Word of God or the Catechism is... They (catholics) have to chose between them because they contradict each other. When the pope begins behaving as a mouthpiece of God...
Grizzly
New Member
Well, the Bible was written by man. Maybe the dude who wrote it was Italian and embellished the story of Peter. Maybe he changed it for shits and giggles. I mean, it waaas written by man.(you people's explanation for anytime there is inconsistencies in the bible, not mine)
Since it was written by man, who's to say any of it is correct? As far as I can tell,(because I am a confirmed Catholic and this is what I was brainwashed...uuuuhhh, taught was the truth) the Pope does indeed talk to God. If his actions appear to be ungodly or inconsisten with scripture, it is most likely because the scripture was written by man and is, therefore, riddled with inaccuracies. One should look to the Pope as the example of how to live a Christian life. He knows, man. He talks right to the almighty.
Since it was written by man, who's to say any of it is correct? As far as I can tell,(because I am a confirmed Catholic and this is what I was brainwashed...uuuuhhh, taught was the truth) the Pope does indeed talk to God. If his actions appear to be ungodly or inconsisten with scripture, it is most likely because the scripture was written by man and is, therefore, riddled with inaccuracies. One should look to the Pope as the example of how to live a Christian life. He knows, man. He talks right to the almighty.
CyniQ
New Member
Grizzly said:I mean, it waaas written by man.(you people's explanation for anytime there is inconsistencies in the bible, not mine)
Since it was written by man, who's to say any of it is correct?
One should look to the Pope as the example of how to live a Christian life. He knows, man. He talks right to the almighty.
True believers say that the bible was written by man but inspired by God. This would make it infallible. The Catechism is supposed to be infallible in the same manner. However, since they contradict each other, they cannot both be 100% correct. I'm not saying I'm a true believer. But, I still challenge you or anyone else to cite some scientific or archeaological inaccuracy in the bible.
So I ask... Who's to say any of it is NOT correct.
If following the example of the Pope is the way to heaven... Well...
I guess I have some little boys to touch.
My thoughts exactly. I would shake the dudes hand, but no way would I bow to a Pope or call him holy father. Aint gonna happen.CyniQ said:The Pope regularly accepts these sorts of displays. Bowing, ring kissing, and the like are tantamount to worship which should be reserved for the Almighty. The Papacy is an abomination. Was that too blunt??
lol, I thought the same thing.....great, we get to see this whole process again in 3 years.big roid said:
CyniQ
New Member
Bob Smith said:
Yeah. More ChimneyCam. "Is that black smoke??" "Wait, wait... Oh god dammit will you put out that cigar!! YOu're fucking up the sanctimonious smoke!!"
thick
New Member
lol i was pretty surprised at the age of the new choice.
Order of creationCyniQ said:True believers say that the bible was written by man but inspired by God. This would make it infallible. The Catechism is supposed to be infallible in the same manner. However, since they contradict each other, they cannot both be 100% correct. I'm not saying I'm a true believer. But, I still challenge you or anyone else to cite some scientific or archeaological inaccuracy in the bible.
So I ask... Who's to say any of it is NOT correct.
If following the example of the Pope is the way to heaven... Well...
I guess I have some little boys to touch.
Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:
Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)
The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:
Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)
How can there be light without the sun?
How can plants survive without sunlight? Afterall, they do depend upon photosynthesis.
Also note the contradictions between the two narratives
manfreakca
New Member
dont disturb the smoke .......smokinnnn
I'm not Catholic and I'm pretty cynical when it comes to organized religion because of all the hypocrisy involved with it, so I really couldn't care less about this guy or the death of John Paul II. It is pretty sad that the first thing I thought to myself when I heard he was going to be a "conservative" pope was "...hmm, so he's only going to fuck 1 boy a week."
CyniQ
New Member
swing said:
It's all part of the great mystery.
HaHa. I hate when people say stuff like that. Anyway if you want me to answer you effectively you'll have to be a little more clear about what you're trying to say. Most people who care to consider this sort of thing believe that the initial "light" was from God himself and not a created thing. Consider that the theory of evolution follows exactly the same creative path. Plants, sea creatures, land creatures (mammals, etc), humans. For that reason among others evolution is a pathetically flawed and Holey (ha get it?) theory. Darwin, Sagan and the like weren't even creative enough to come up with their own creative game plan. Aside from that, I believe that the creative record was meant more for reference than accuracy (convenient I know. But not a cop-out.). Are you familiar with the device that prevented Adam and Eve from reentering the Garden of Eden? It was reportedly a flaming sword. Was it in actuality a "flaming sword"? Almost certainly not. Adam had never seen a sword, it would have had no impact on him. Moses intended readers, however, knew exactly what a sword was. This symbolism would have great effect on them. They would understand that it was impossible for Adam to go back. The Bible was written for us to understand, not pick apart. Amazing that it holds up anyway.
If you truly believe in evolution. Consider your reasons for your belief. Were you convinced? Do you take issue with the idea of a higher power that requires you to be in subjection to him? Do you find the idea of having to answer for yourself distasteful?
I'm not an Evolutionist, although I have taken a couple of classes regarding the subject. I'm actually working on my Ph.D in Middle Eastern Studies. So I've read the Bible (in arabic...which is almost as close as you can arrive towards the original languanges), the Torah, and I just completed reading the Koran. I was raised a Pentacostal, but because of the persistent contradictions within the Bible I could no longer accept its validity. An example, Matt 27:5 Judas commits suicide by hanging himself, and in Acts 1:18 dies by falling headlong. If the Bible is truly God's Word then it shouldn't contradiction itself.
Of all three texts (Torah, Bible, and Koran) I respect the Koran the most. It challenges mankind to disect it, and search for flaws. Whereas, the other two texts forces one to sacrifice their innate intellectual curiosity for the sake of "faith." Regarding the Biblical narration of creation, everyone knows that plants being created before the sun is highly improbable, they wouldn't be able to survive. Albert Einstein was discussed the perfect order of creation, it that account doesn't fit into the equation.
Of all three texts (Torah, Bible, and Koran) I respect the Koran the most. It challenges mankind to disect it, and search for flaws. Whereas, the other two texts forces one to sacrifice their innate intellectual curiosity for the sake of "faith." Regarding the Biblical narration of creation, everyone knows that plants being created before the sun is highly improbable, they wouldn't be able to survive. Albert Einstein was discussed the perfect order of creation, it that account doesn't fit into the equation.
Grizzly
New Member
CyniQ said:
Ooh, ooh, ooh, ME, ME, ME!!!!! I'll be good goddamned(hah hah) if I live my life for the glory of anyone but my goddamned self! Not that it exactly addresses this particular issue directly, but I feel quoting Pantera is appropriate. "I'll call no man a father who's no closer than a stranger."
Grizzly
New Member
Furthermore, do you not see this as God committing one of the "seven deadly sins"? Seems about as prideful as a dude can get.
"I'm fucking perfect," he says to himself as there is nothing in creation yet. "I should use my super powers to create some shit to demonstrate how cool and perfect I am." Bam, boom, bah, there's the earth, heaven stars and all that genesis shit.
"Hmmmm, that was pretty cool. I wish there were someone else around to tell me how fucking cool and perfect I am. That would sooooo cool, man. Light bulb! Gosh durned it, I am one smart, perfect, awesome guy! Otherwise I would never have been able to come up with such a stellar idea. I am going to create little beings in my image(of course, because how can you improve on perfection?) that are going to spend their lives worshipping me. If they don't, even though I "love them"(HAH! that's my "hah", not god's) I'm going to cast them down into an eternity of torment simply because they didn't spend their life on their knees telling me how awesome I am."
Come to think of it, sounds an awful lot like the Roman/Greek gods who are typically criticized for being too much like human beings which "supposedly" demonstrates that they were figments of the human imagination. Hmmmmmmmmmm, what does that say about the Christian divinity.......
"I'm fucking perfect," he says to himself as there is nothing in creation yet. "I should use my super powers to create some shit to demonstrate how cool and perfect I am." Bam, boom, bah, there's the earth, heaven stars and all that genesis shit.
"Hmmmm, that was pretty cool. I wish there were someone else around to tell me how fucking cool and perfect I am. That would sooooo cool, man. Light bulb! Gosh durned it, I am one smart, perfect, awesome guy! Otherwise I would never have been able to come up with such a stellar idea. I am going to create little beings in my image(of course, because how can you improve on perfection?) that are going to spend their lives worshipping me. If they don't, even though I "love them"(HAH! that's my "hah", not god's) I'm going to cast them down into an eternity of torment simply because they didn't spend their life on their knees telling me how awesome I am."
Come to think of it, sounds an awful lot like the Roman/Greek gods who are typically criticized for being too much like human beings which "supposedly" demonstrates that they were figments of the human imagination. Hmmmmmmmmmm, what does that say about the Christian divinity.......
CyniQ
New Member
swing said:
Most of what people regard as contradictions are actually their own ignorance combined with somewhat inadequate information. I think that's probably the case here. The book of Matthew was written by Matthew. Acts was written by Luke. You're comparing two different points of view. Judas hung himself near a cliff the branch to which he tied the rope breaks and his body falls to the rocks below where it breaks apart. Did he die from the hanging or the falling? Two different points of view.
Regarding the creation record as it occurs in scripture. The sun and earth were likely created long before the first creative day began. Genesis 1:2, the earth was formless and there was a darkness on the surface of the watery deep. Gen 1:3, some translations read "Let light come to be." JW Watts translation says "gradually light came into existence". This is appropriate as (and you probably know this) the form of the Hebrew verb involved means a "gradual occurance". Perhaps a mixture of water vapor, gases, and volcanic dust prevented the suns light from reaching the earth. This began to clear gradually from the first day, as God proceeded with other creation, and had cleared enough by the fourth day that the sun and moon and stars were clearly discernable.
Why you would think that reading the bible in Arabic would help you to understand it better is beyond me. Do you think that the Arabic versions you've read have undergone any fewer translations and revisions than the English??
The idea that you have more respect for the "Qur'an" than the Bible, betrays your thinly veiled ignorance. Abraham is the "father" of all three of the religions that you mentioned. I would actually categorize them as two religions as according to scripture Jews should actually be Christians, and of the two religions, Islam is the newest. Many texts in the Qur'an are biblical ripoffs. Muhammed wrestled with an angel. Sound familiar?
BTW if you're actually pursuing a Phd. You should try to use the words "contradict" and "contradiction" in the proper context.
