Dead pope!

[md]

The church is going to hell, and the pope's leading the way

In all honesty, I feel bad for the man, but i could really wish that christians (or at least those who care) wern't so vocal, i mean, sure your religious leader is dead, but those of us who don't share your convictions REALLY DON'T GIVE A FLYING ****! There is no reason for the entire paper to be devoted to a man whom a very small portion of the world care about, i'd much rather hear about something relavent to the world.


Anyways, I'm just ranting (see other posts for a good idea of why...), I don't mean to offend anyone important, but if you are, well i guess that's part of life.

PS: Martin protect my right to free speech, or i'll flay your ass... i got a new whip

[Martin]

My money says that the pope was an agnostic. There's no way that one can make it that high up in an organized religion without losing their faith. The church is so disgustingly corrupt; the world's biggest hate group.

[rizzix]

oh yea you rather hear about homosexuals dominating our society eh? (or some other silly article?)

martin: the man was great, because of his good deeds, his good character, and loving personality. nothing else.


and please dont humiliate you selfs, you sound like fools.

[md]

I have nothing against the man; although i do disagree with his beliefs. My beef is with organized religion.

And I have nothing agains homosexuals; and they certainly won't dominate our society... Just because you disagree with someones sexual orientation is no reason to deny them the same rights as anyone else.

If you actually look at some of the things the church preaches you'll find that it's generally stupid. No pre-marital sex, and then no birth control when you do get some so your gonna have lots of kids, or not much fun...

Anyways, I don't kind looing like a fool; at least i don't subscribe to the biggest mass illusion of all time.

[Tony]

Cornflake wrote:

If you actually look at some of the things the church preaches you'll find that it's generally stupid. No pre-marital sex, and then no birth control when you do get some so your gonna have lots of kids, or not much fun...

actually the rules used to make perfect sence.

No pre-marital sex ensured happy families, and no birth control provided a rapid growing supply of population to send out on crusades.

The downfall of organized religion is that they forgot to keep up with the changing times and are still trying to make 2000 year old rules applicable. It's like schools trying to teach COBOL.

[rizzix]

haha. maybe its the other way around.. You could be under the false illusion that what you believe that church preaches,, is silly or worng! One can argue either way.

I personally believe what the church preaches is right,, cuz they are not morons (not implying anyting) who out of no where, with their gut feelings come out with foolish and silly conclusions.. They have contempleated, meditiated, studied and thought hard about morality and the likes. and that too not just for a few mins in life, those priests dedicate thier entire life for this reason. The church is one of the oldes t institutions in the world. Thier conclusions are truly inspired by God!

[rizzix]

tony wrote:

Cornflake wrote:

If you actually look at some of the things the church preaches you'll find that it's generally stupid. No pre-marital sex, and then no birth control when you do get some so your gonna have lots of kids, or not much fun...

actually the rules used to make perfect sence.

No pre-marital sex ensured happy families, and no birth control provided a rapid growing supply of population to send out on crusades.

The downfall of organized religion is that they forgot to keep up with the changing times and are still trying to make 2000 year old rules applicable. It's like schools trying to teach COBOL.

nope. you see. this is the problem.. people believe that modern ideas are better than traditional ideas. Its not true. as world modernised, the more atheistic (actually not even, its worse) it has become. maybe there are advances in technology,, but in morality things are in a downfall. we do what we "feel" like doing (eventually we face the consequences). Its not true that everyting we "feel" like doing is "right". i mean does ever "pleasure" come with true happiness? its more like sadness? cuz one has forgotten the real meaning of happiness and peace,, one moves to look for pleasures to keep himself satisfied. but all pleasures are temporary. that happiness that most people lack in the world today (but not everwhere in the world) is God sent and long lasting.

If you've haven't experience it, you never will. Unless you decide to change.

[Martin]

Sorry, I really can't agree with anything that teaches hate towards homosexuals or blatant sexism, or that our entire population came from an incestuous relationship between Adam, Eve, and their three sons.

[Cervantes]

rizzix wrote:

that happiness that most people lack in the world today (but not everwhere in the world) is God sent and long lasting.

That happiness actually comes from simply believing in something, anything. It doesn't matter how stupid that thing is. All that matters is that you believe it's right.
And, in the case of religion, it's wrong.

[rizzix]

martin wrote:

Sorry, I really can't agree with anything that teaches hate towards homosexuals or blatant sexism, or that our entire population came from an incestuous relationship between Adam, Eve, and their three sons.

they dont teach hate towards homosexuals. oncea gain you have missunderstood the church. and there no sexist teachings either.

[rizzix]

Cervantes wrote:

rizzix wrote:

that happiness that most people lack in the world today (but not everwhere in the world) is God sent and long lasting.

That happiness actually comes from simply believing in something, anything. It doesn't matter how stupid that thing is. All that matters is that you believe it's right.
And, in the case of religion, it's wrong.

Go ahead and believe all you want in anything.. i doubt you fell all that happy.

But the purpose of the Catholic religion is not just "happiness", how selfish would that be!?! i mean if the religion is all about ones own comfort! its much deeper than that.

[Martin]

rizzix wrote:

martin wrote:

Sorry, I really can't agree with anything that teaches hate towards homosexuals or blatant sexism, or that our entire population came from an incestuous relationship between Adam, Eve, and their three sons.

they dont teach hate towards homosexuals. oncea gain you have missunderstood the church. and there no sexist teachings either.

So what do they teach about homosexuals? Just intollerance? Suppose a female wanted to become the pope, what would she have to do? Or what about the whole thing with Lilith?

Timothy 2:12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Not sexist?

[Cervantes]

rizzix wrote:

Go ahead and believe all you want in anything.. i doubt you fell all that happy.

Oh, I'm happy.

[rizzix]

martin wrote:

So what do they teach about homosexuals? Just intollerance?

ha? then again misunderstood. homosexualtiy was present even at the time of the Roman era.. the church did not interefere with them (infact recent events was the homosexual interfering with the church and NOT visa versa), it only enforced that within the chuch such activites never happen, since they are "evil" in nature and condemend them.

What has brought about the recent disturbance with the church is the "re-definition of the word marriage". Marriage is a holy sacrament, and thus "holy" in nature. But if you are to associate it with an act of evil how is that acceptable? Why not simply call it a "union" or something... its just that all that these fools wish to do is contridict the church and bash it at all times as far as possible. Its only after they decided to interfere with the church, that the church decided to defend it self.

martin wrote:

Suppose a female wanted to become the pope, what would she have to do? Or what about the whole thing with Lilith?

what in the world is Lilith? It's not part of any "christian" teachings... you've got it messed up again. And the whole female not becoming the Pope thing is part of the Apostolic Tradition, its a custom, and is not intended in any way to descriminate women in any form. It is a form of respect (following the tradition with all its implied metaphors) to God himself. No well informed catholic women would ever complain about it! (and keep in mind not everyone is well literate). Many catholics in fact do not even practice their religion, they are obviously not fit to be catholics, and are required to change.

martin wrote:

Timothy 2:12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Not sexist?

Oh please dont just come up with simply quotes and expect it to be a good argument to contradict the church.. "Even the devil can quote the bible".. Either way, you obviously haven't studied the context of that phrase, and have done little to NO analysis.. It's in fact a bit too in depth to explain (i hate religious arguments for this reason), it requires knowldege on the situation (state) of the church at that point in history. If you need a fairly detailed explaination look at [this]

[Martin]

rizzix wrote:

martin wrote:

So what do they teach about homosexuals? Just intollerance?

ha? then again misunderstood. homosexualtiy was present even at the time of the Roman era.. the church did not interefere with them (infact recent events was the homosexual interfering with the church and NOT visa versa), it only enforced that within the chuch such activites never happen, since they are "evil" in nature and condemend them.

What has brought about the recent disturbance with the church is the "re-definition of the word marriage". Marriage is a holy sacrament, and thus "holy" in nature. But if you are to associate it with an act of evil how is that acceptable? Why not simply call it a "union" or something... its just that all that these fools wish to do is contridict the church and bash it at all times as far as possible. Its only after they decided to interfere with the church, that the church decided to defend it self.

Because we all know that the same but different is a good thing. Look at how well it went for the Jews in the 30's, for example.

And forget the pope, what about female priests? Tradition again? Suppose I decided to pay my female employees $5/hour less than my male employees in the name of tradition, would you consider that acceptable? Or what about if I paid everyone the same, but I decided that women couldn't become the president, vice president or on the board of directors? Fair?

Also, the bible clearly states numerous times that "Homosexuality is an abomination." Not much room for interpretation there.

And ahh...that article you linked to was disgustingly sexist, I have no idea how you don't see it...

To quote the conclusion:

Quote:

These factors would not necessarily prevent a woman from giving an occasional message to the assembly, since the oversight and accountability aspects would be handled by the other leaders and teachers of the church. But this would not really constitute teaching in the Pauline sense. Nor would the Pauline concept of teaching necessarily prohibit women from teaching in seminaries or other academic institutions, for the oversight and authority exercised there is academic in nature, not spiritual and ethical. This is not to say that seminaries and academic institutions should not exercise spiritual and ethical oversight and authority, only that these types of oversight functions can be separated from the academic teaching process in a way that should not be done in the church. Finally, Paul's perspective on women seems to be that they would find greater significance in God's eyes in fulfilling the role of motherhood, the role for which they were uniquely designed. That role may be augmented by teaching other women and children, but they should not consider teaching men a "greater glory."

And finally, Lilith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith