If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   New Pope warns church they are in danger of being compassionate   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 163
    More: Followup, Vatican Radio, Castel Gandolfo, morning shows, direct access, First Hour, Jesuits, Sistine Chapel Mass, Catholic Church  
•       •       •

13820 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Mar 2013 at 4:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



163 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-14 06:30:14 PM

mnemonic device: jayhawk88: Doesn't Purgatory factor into that somehow as well? If you're not a True Catholic but are still a good person, you just have to hang out in Heaven's waiting area for a few thousand years?

Virtuous pagans are said to go to Limbo, which you don't get out of.  Purgatory is different.  Note however that my info is fourth-hand (or so) via Pournelle and Niven.


That's Dante. He was not actually a religious leader; Inferno was satire. Purgatory is a religious belief, not satire.

/Everyone mixes that up, but Inferno is something you study in English class precisely  because it's satirical, aimed at a lot of political leaders of the day.
 
2013-03-14 06:33:14 PM
"If we do not confess to Christ ... "

Pffffft!! Why can't these guys just live like ... Christ?
 
2013-03-14 06:34:37 PM

spentmiles: - then maybe I could take his little showboating examples of humility seriously.


So....I am not the only person that has picked up on this. There is a "look at me!" quality to his alleged humility.

Some vatican priest was quoted yesterday noting that the new Pope told him "with great pride" that he cooked for himself and took the bus.
I think that's what passes for a snide remark among priests.
 
2013-03-14 06:38:09 PM

arethereanybeernamesleft: That, folks, is what we call heresy.


Faith without works is dead.

That's a quote from the book of James.
 
2013-03-14 06:39:03 PM
Im a big FARK feeb whore got a golden keyboard
And Im loved everywhere like dope.
I type with vain beauty and a type of half truth
And I hate me that Catholic Pope.
I get all kindsa thrills exploitin all kindsa shills
But the thrill Ive never know
Is the chill that'll getcha when you get your picture
On the cover of the Trollin Stone
 
2013-03-14 06:39:05 PM

mongbiohazard: jso2897: I don't see the complication. I evaluate an institution same as I do a person. When you do good, I'll applaud and support you - when you do bad, I'll condemn and oppose you. What's the big quandary, here?


A long history of lying to their host cultures, supporting murderous regimes, a habit of keeping their officers shielded from justice, stealing wealth from primitive cultures, manipulating all of their host societies with fear, barbaric views on women's health which have deeply negative reprecussions (most particularly in Africa right now), bigoted teachings about homosexuals, raping tens of thousands of children while quite effectively shielding the vast majority of rapists from justice, taking advantage of their status as a non-profit while simultaneously being one of the most wealthy land and business owners in the world, money laundering and graft to which they're effectively unable to be held to account for... etc. etc......

The quandry I'd say is that few actually DO hold them accountable for what they do. If we did hold them accountable then no one would remain a member of that particular church.


See what I mean? It's as simple for you as it is for me. No quandary!
We both have it all worked out to our own satisfaction.
 
2013-03-14 06:39:22 PM
upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-03-14 06:39:47 PM

Melvin Lovecraft: Speaking of purgatory, Fark has had 7, count 'em, SEVEN pope threads today, and not one about the death of Clive Burr yesterday. Somebody doesn't have their priorities straight.


This.  Are Fark mods having a Pope-gasm?

"OH POPE!"
"OH POPE!!"
"OH POPE!!!"
"OHHH POPE!!!"
"POPE!!!!!! OH!"
etc....


Go Home Fark, You're Drunk.
 
2013-03-14 06:40:38 PM

boinkingbill: This guy is turning out to be a real fiscal conservative.


We in California have an ex-Jesuit as a governor. These behaviors are very familiar.
 
2013-03-14 06:42:31 PM

factoryconnection: it isn't all fighting against gay marriage/adoption and contraception.


But they're sure working on it.
 
2013-03-14 06:44:16 PM

Lord Jubjub: Silverstaff: One of the big points of contention in the Protestant Reformation was the idea that for a baptism to be valid it must be performed on somebody who is old enough to know what it means, and choose to receive it.  That was the dawn of the anabaptist movement, which later became the Baptist Church.

ummm, not quite.  The anabaptists started in Switzerland and spread northward.  Present-day Holland was a major hub.  When the Puritans were expelled from England by Elizabeth I, some went to Holland and picked up many of their ideas.  When these people moved to the U.S., they called themselves Baptists.

The anabaptist movement includes many more people in and from continental Europe such as Mennonites and the Amish.


How does that affect what I said?  I wasn't talking about their geographic origins, but their theological divergence from Catholicism?  Are you saying the anabaptists believed in infant baptism?  Are you talking about them as the theological origin of modern-day Baptists?

Yeah, the American Baptist faiths came from Puritans. . .and the Puritans were derived from continental Anabaptists in the early 1600's.  A quick double-check of the Wiki has a citation that the Puritan movement in England was inspired/derived from Anabaptists in Amsterdam circa 1609, but it branched off and became its own movement (I normally hate to bring anything in from the wiki, but as a quick double-check that I'm not misremembering this part).  It also states that some historians think it did arise independently. . .but was theologically influenced by it (as is evident from their very similar beliefs arising around the same time).

Theologically, the Puritans and modern-day Baptists hold the same key tenets of Christianity as historic anabaptists and modern anabaptist-derived denominations: belief in the Priesthood of All Believers, rejection of infant baptism/believers baptism, sola scriptura, evangelism.
 
2013-03-14 06:54:13 PM
I pay my hotel bill every time. Where is my big, pointy hat? Where are my red shoes?!?
 
2013-03-14 06:56:02 PM

fusillade762: [upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com image 850x807]


Holy Crap! You mean the leader of a religion that doesn't believe in gay marriage might not belief in gay marriage!!!!
 
2013-03-14 06:58:14 PM

ChiWhiteSox_56: I pay my hotel bill every time. Where is my big, pointy hat? Where are my red shoes?!?


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-14 06:58:23 PM

Glendale: Felix_T_Cat: I don't think he means confessing sins to Christ, but confessing to others that Jesus is Christ.  If they are doing good works, but not telling people about Jesus, they're just an NGO.  I see this all the time in non Catholic churches too.  Churches are doing outreaches to the poor & are afraid to tell them about Jesus. One lady told she would be afraid to tell people about Jesus.  I said, "Why? Are you afraid they'll laugh at you?  You're already a Christian..."

One lady I met hands out food to the homeless every Tuesday night.  She's always out there going into dangerous places and handing out food.  Our group bumps into hers often.  I looked up her group on the internet and found out she's a pastor and that a half dozen churches are supplying the food.  I  point out homeless that tell me that they want to be prayed for, but she's afraid to let them know.  You really have to press her to even find ...

There's two reasons I can think of:

1) The potential for religion hate as seen in your typical Fark religion thread out there in the real world
2) Trying to distance yourself or your group from other people/groups that are total douches about pushing their religious agenda, or those that are assholes to everyone but it's all good because they'll be forgiven later.

If it were me it'd be the second reason, not wanting to be lumped in with all the loud mouthed, hateful ass-munches that carry on under the banner of God/Jesus.


Yeah, we refused to work with another group that went for 3 second 'Rodeo' evangelism.  It was an inner city group that did that because they were afraid the people they were talking too would be dead soon. I just don't experience them dying that regularly.  As far as I saw, it just built up a wall fast & the people who had been tromped on wouldn't accept aid from anyone they thought were associated with them.  And we'll work with _anyone_.  We work alongside lots of secular NGO's.  From the start we told the NGO's, "If you think we're harming your work, correct us.  If we won't be corrected, abandon us."

But the point is this, if you go in for Jesus and really believe it, it's the most important thing you have to offer.  Yeah, you're feeding and clothing them, but you believe this Jesus thing can give them everything.

There is another reason I could think of.  At first the homeless are thrilled and we become close.  We mention God, but don't get overbearing.  Over time as they continue to get drunk and beat each other up, we become an inconvenient mirror.  They start to feel ashamed and start hiding their weed and booze.  We know about the reaction now and just keep trying to love them till they get used to the idea that they aren't being judged.  But they're judging themselves and it's uncomfortable for the ones who aren't good at lying to themselves.

One time we we're walking into an area with some social workers...

Worker: "Hey, we're not supposed to be here.  A guy got beat up and someone has a gun."
Us:  "Yeah, we know.  We have an understanding with them.  We're going to talk to them now."
Worker:  "We're going to see the victim?"
Us:  "No, we're going to talk to the assailants."
Assailant (depressed):  "We haven't seen you in a while."
Us:  "We're still at the bus station every Tuesday night.  You know where to find us if you need something."

We bumped into one of the girls the other night, "Hey! These are the the church people!  They're the shiat!"
 
2013-03-14 07:02:34 PM

WTF Indeed: fusillade762: [upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com image 850x807]

Holy Crap! You mean the leader of a religion that doesn't believe in gay marriage might not belief in gay marriage!!!!


When you focus on opposition to gay marriage, gays in general, birth control and a resistance to cleaning up the corruption in your own ranks, you have to expect a healthy amount of scorn, ridicule and contempt by the rest of humanity.

By the way, if Jesus was 'real', he'd have divorced this biatch of a 'bride' by now.
 
2013-03-14 07:04:23 PM

Melvin Lovecraft: Speaking of purgatory, Fark has had 7, count 'em, SEVEN pope threads today, and not one about the death of Clive Burr yesterday. Somebody doesn't have their priorities straight.


http://www.fark.com/comments/7642284/Iron-Maiden-drummer-Clive-Burr- di es-at-56
 
2013-03-14 07:10:49 PM

Silverstaff: Infants are typically baptized when several days or weeks old. Thus, they can be baptized without understanding or consenting. One of the points of a Godfather or Godmother is to consent on behalf of the child, speaking in lieu of the Holy Spirit.

One of the big points of contention in the Protestant Reformation was the idea that for a baptism to be valid it must be performed on somebody who is old enough to know what it means, and choose to receive it. That was the dawn of the anabaptist movement, which later became the Baptist Church.


This was always one of my big issues with Catholicism.  Infant baptism as a community celebration I can understand.  Infant baptism as a means of removing original sin, absent any kind of choice in the matter, is ridiculous.  Similarly ridiculous is baptism of the dead, as the Mormons do.

Of course, I find the entire concept of "original sin" originating from "Adam and Eve" as equally ridiculous.  And thus my early, and quick, transition to agnosticism.
 
2013-03-14 07:19:01 PM

This space intentionally left blank.: CygnusDarius: algrant33: SOMEBODY TELL ME WHAT THE FARK IS AN "NGO"


*clap* *clap* NGO
*clap* *clap* NGO
*clap* *clap* NGO
And Bingo was his name-o

Non-governmental organization, which, by its strict definition, is the Church already.

Are you sure on that one? Religious aspect aside, the Vatican is a sovereign nation, with the pope as head of state.


..statehood which was actually granted by the Italian government in 1920 (Lateran Accords )  . It enabled Mussolini to keep on the good side of the RC Church while he went about his way amassing power.

Talk about a deal with the devil.
 
2013-03-14 07:21:03 PM

jso2897: I don't see the complication. I evaluate an institution same as I do a person. When you do good, I'll applaud and support you - when you do bad, I'll condemn and oppose you. What's the big quandary, here?


Have a look at Mother Theresa, the public opinion and adoration. Then compare it to the actual truth of how she lived her life, the conflict is impressive. That's the problem. Most people trust their religious leaders and cannot take themselves the needed step back to see how it is really 'good' or 'bad'. They are too used to being told and not analysing it themselves.
 
2013-03-14 07:21:20 PM

RodneyToady: And thus my early, and quick, transition to agnosticism.


Keep contemplating the "Problem of Evil" (which is the formal name of the concept you mention in your 5:13 post), and your conversion will eventually be complete.
 
2013-03-14 07:35:07 PM

arethereanybeernamesleft: Kind of like Obamacare.  It won't cure the common cold, it'll just treat the symptoms.


Is there anything that does cure the common cold?  If so, I'd like to hear about it.
 
2013-03-14 07:38:25 PM
They cannot be an NGO, nongovernmental organization.  The Vatican is a sovereign state. The head of that state is the pope. Therefore they are a G.O..

/and as far as compassion goes? pfft.
 
2013-03-14 07:53:37 PM

Acharne: jso2897: I don't see the complication. I evaluate an institution same as I do a person. When you do good, I'll applaud and support you - when you do bad, I'll condemn and oppose you. What's the big quandary, here?

Have a look at Mother Theresa, the public opinion and adoration. Then compare it to the actual truth of how she lived her life, the conflict is impressive. That's the problem. Most people trust their religious leaders and cannot take themselves the needed step back to see how it is really 'good' or 'bad'. They are too used to being told and not analysing it themselves.


I know about all that - what's your point?
 
2013-03-14 08:06:01 PM
Changing more than one thing at a time is difficult with such a old and huge institution.  I think going after Priests getting Married rule would help change things.... Ive ben wondering if a MASSIVE letter writing multia media campaign to the new Pope would change his opinion on letting Priests get married, since it's not based in doctrine, and was at one time allowed.

This would hopefully alleviate some of the sexual desperation that helps fuel some of their disgusting acts.

I also wouldnt mind if they farking stepped up and tool 100% responsibility for the rapes.
 
2013-03-14 08:09:01 PM

IoSaturnalia: RodneyToady: And thus my early, and quick, transition to agnosticism.

Keep contemplating the "Problem of Evil" (which is the formal name of the concept you mention in your 5:13 post), and your conversion will eventually be complete.


I've thought about that a bit.  But I keep getting caught up on my inconclusiveness as to whether or not "evil" actually exists.

It's a convenient concept... like some supernatural force is making us do horrible things.  But we already know too much about psychology and neuroscience to blindly chalk things up to "evil."  We don't know enough to "fix" what makes us do horrific things, but there's enough evidence to have us keep looking in the natural realm rather than the supernatural.
 
2013-03-14 08:10:58 PM
Serious question for the Farkers criticizing the Catholic Church for the accumulated wealth in the Vatican and churches across the world: How would you work with the fact that the vast majority of the wealth consists of art and architecture? To my understanding, they're not sitting on hoards of gold bars and piles of cash. Do you advocate either selling off the art to private collectors (since a nonprofit would presumably be subject to the same criticism) or melting it down?
 
2013-03-14 08:18:11 PM

jso2897: Acharne: jso2897: I don't see the complication. I evaluate an institution same as I do a person. When you do good, I'll applaud and support you - when you do bad, I'll condemn and oppose you. What's the big quandary, here?

Have a look at Mother Theresa, the public opinion and adoration. Then compare it to the actual truth of how she lived her life, the conflict is impressive. That's the problem. Most people trust their religious leaders and cannot take themselves the needed step back to see how it is really 'good' or 'bad'. They are too used to being told and not analysing it themselves.

I know about all that - what's your point?


His point was that the Catholic church has a very strong propaganda machine which when coupled with many people's inherent bias to trust their familiar authority figures means few people are honestly doing what you say you do - even when they claim to be. If they really were, they would have little choice but to quit the church in disgust because objectively speaking the church as an organization is patently untrustworthy at the very, very least.
 
2013-03-14 08:21:56 PM

Victoly: Melvin Lovecraft: Speaking of purgatory, Fark has had 7, count 'em, SEVEN pope threads today, and not one about the death of Clive Burr yesterday. Somebody doesn't have their priorities straight.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7642284/Iron-Maiden-drummer-Clive-Burr- di es-at-56



I stand corrected.  Thank you.
 
2013-03-14 08:28:37 PM
In a Sistine Chapel Mass with cardinals on his first day as Church leader, the pontiff said: "If we do not confess to Christ, what would we be?

Well, probably a little more responsible and accountable for your own actions and their consequences. Perhaps also a bit more productive.
 
2013-03-14 08:53:15 PM

jayhawk88: RodneyToady: Weaver95: so if you are kind to the sick and poor but aren't a christian then...what? it doesn't count?

I vaguely remember from Catholic school that if you're not Catholic but still act in ways that are Christ-like, you can get into heaven.  It's possible that it's only the case for people who are baptized, though, I don't remember.  Good deeds gets you part of the way there.

For some other Christian branches, good deeds don't mean shiat... you've either accepted Christ as your savior, or you're going to hell.

Doesn't Purgatory factor into that somehow as well? If you're not a True Catholic but are still a good person, you just have to hang out in Heaven's waiting area for a few thousand years?


If I recall correctly, the last Pope officially did away with Purgatory. Think it might have been one of the rare moments of invoking infallibility, and I THINK "as on earth, thus in heaven" rule thingymajigg
 
2013-03-14 08:54:50 PM
That brings up another challenge, name one act of compassion that can't be accomplished through purely secular means.
 
2013-03-14 09:02:41 PM

Weaver95: thornhill: Maybe he should be thinking about why it is that people like to pool their money to help the needy but are drifting away from Catholic dogma.

i'd be more concerned with the growing heretical notions spawned by evangelical 'christian' sects here in the united states.  specifically, the pernicious 'prosperity gospel' doctrine, but any of the vaguely defined groups that define themselves as 'christian' yet show little or no actual respect for the teachings as listed by christ in the new testament.  not only are these groups and ideologies toxic to the Church's authority but they also have a rather large amount of money along with undo influence on the Republican party.  their heretical notions directly impact the policies of the US government, and indirectly influence the rest of the world.


So how is that different from the regular churches?
 
2013-03-14 09:09:23 PM

PsiChick: mnemonic device: jayhawk88: Doesn't Purgatory factor into that somehow as well? If you're not a True Catholic but are still a good person, you just have to hang out in Heaven's waiting area for a few thousand years?

Virtuous pagans are said to go to Limbo, which you don't get out of.  Purgatory is different.  Note however that my info is fourth-hand (or so) via Pournelle and Niven.

That's Dante. He was not actually a religious leader; Inferno was satire. Purgatory is a religious belief, not satire.

/Everyone mixes that up, but Inferno is something you study in English class precisely  because it's satirical, aimed at a lot of political leaders of the day.


Inferno is part of a trilogy. The other two cover Purgatory and Heaven.
 
2013-03-14 09:11:49 PM

mongbiohazard: jso2897: Acharne: jso2897: I don't see the complication. I evaluate an institution same as I do a person. When you do good, I'll applaud and support you - when you do bad, I'll condemn and oppose you. What's the big quandary, here?

Have a look at Mother Theresa, the public opinion and adoration. Then compare it to the actual truth of how she lived her life, the conflict is impressive. That's the problem. Most people trust their religious leaders and cannot take themselves the needed step back to see how it is really 'good' or 'bad'. They are too used to being told and not analysing it themselves.

I know about all that - what's your point?

His point was that the Catholic church has a very strong propaganda machine which when coupled with many people's inherent bias to trust their familiar authority figures means few people are honestly doing what you say you do - even when they claim to be. If they really were, they would have little choice but to quit the church in disgust because objectively speaking the church as an organization is patently untrustworthy at the very, very least.


Well, I wouldn't know about that. I can only look at religious institutions from the point of view of an outsider, so I'm free to draw my own conclusions. I can judge deeds as good or bad - but as far as people or institutions, one of the "luxuries" of not being or believing in any god is not having to stand in judgment of other people, or their institutions. Kind of the moral equivalent of not having to get up on Sunday morning and go to church.
Ergo, from where I sit, they are do good when they do good, and bad when they do bad. I'll leave judging them as people or institutions to those who feel their moral authority extends to that.
I do find it amusing that you presume to explain to me how the Catholic church or any religious institution "works", as if I were somehow unaware of that. I haven't spent my life on Mars, in a cave, with my fingers in my ears, y'know.
 
2013-03-14 09:23:39 PM

jso2897: mongbiohazard: jso2897: Acharne: jso2897: I don't see the complication. I evaluate an institution same as I do a person. When you do good, I'll applaud and support you - when you do bad, I'll condemn and oppose you. What's the big quandary, here?

Have a look at Mother Theresa, the public opinion and adoration. Then compare it to the actual truth of how she lived her life, the conflict is impressive. That's the problem. Most people trust their religious leaders and cannot take themselves the needed step back to see how it is really 'good' or 'bad'. They are too used to being told and not analysing it themselves.

I know about all that - what's your point?

His point was that the Catholic church has a very strong propaganda machine which when coupled with many people's inherent bias to trust their familiar authority figures means few people are honestly doing what you say you do - even when they claim to be. If they really were, they would have little choice but to quit the church in disgust because objectively speaking the church as an organization is patently untrustworthy at the very, very least.

Well, I wouldn't know about that. I can only look at religious institutions from the point of view of an outsider, so I'm free to draw my own conclusions. I can judge deeds as good or bad - but as far as people or institutions, one of the "luxuries" of not being or believing in any god is not having to stand in judgment of other people, or their institutions. Kind of the moral equivalent of not having to get up on Sunday morning and go to church.
Ergo, from where I sit, they are do good when they do good, and bad when they do bad. I'll leave judging them as people or institutions to those who feel their moral authority extends to that.
I do find it amusing that you presume to explain to me how the Catholic church or any religious institution "works", as if I were somehow unaware of that. I haven't spent my life on Mars, in a cave, with my fingers in my ears, y'know.


You used a lot of words to say "I don't give a shiat, I'm completely apathetic."
 
2013-03-14 09:31:56 PM
And aside from the few acres that constitute Vatican City, where ISN'T the church an NGO?
 
2013-03-14 09:32:33 PM

Infernalist: You used a lot of words to say "I don't give a shiat, I'm completely apathetic."


No, actually. I didn't say that, in any number of words. That I don't presume to pronounce any person or institution categorically good or evil, as a whole, does not express or imply any lack of moral judgment on my part. The willingness to pass judgment on others, and the ability to distinguish good deeds from bad are two separate and distinct human qualities.
 
2013-03-14 09:42:56 PM

Silverstaff: Lord Jubjub: Silverstaff: One of the big points of contention in the Protestant Reformation was the idea that for a baptism to be valid it must be performed on somebody who is old enough to know what it means, and choose to receive it.  That was the dawn of the anabaptist movement, which later became the Baptist Church.


That was my point of contention.  You're statement implied that anabaptists became the Baptist Church.  I merely pointed out that the opposite was true.
 
2013-03-14 09:56:04 PM
I thought this was the most interesting bit in the article: "A visit to his predecessor Benedict XVI at his retreat at Castel Gandolfo outside Rome is also planned, but will not take place in the next couple of days, Father Lombardi said.  The visit to Benedict is important, correspondents say, as the existence of a living retired pope has prompted fears of a possible rival power."

POPE FIGHT!
 
2013-03-14 09:59:38 PM

fifthhorseman: I thought this was the most interesting bit in the article: "A visit to his predecessor Benedict XVI at his retreat at Castel Gandolfo outside Rome is also planned, but will not take place in the next couple of days, Father Lombardi said.  The visit to Benedict is important, correspondents say, as the existence of a living retired pope has prompted fears of a possible rival power."

POPE FIGHT!


I don't see it being much of a fight. Benedict still has a devastating left hook, but his timing is shot, and his footwork has suffered badly in recent years. Francis has the youth, the speed, and the reach. No contest.
 
2013-03-14 10:07:23 PM
mongbiohazard: jso2897: Acharne: jso2897: I don't see the complication. I evaluate an institution same as I do a person. When you do good, I'll applaud and support you - when you do bad, I'll condemn and oppose you. What's the big quandary, here?

Have a look at Mother Theresa, the public opinion and adoration. Then compare it to the actual truth of how she lived her life, the conflict is impressive. That's the problem. Most people trust their religious leaders and cannot take themselves the needed step back to see how it is really 'good' or 'bad'. They are too used to being told and not analysing it themselves.

I know about all that - what's your point?

His point was that the Catholic church has a very strong propaganda machine which when coupled with many people's inherent bias to trust their familiar authority figures means few people are honestly doing what you say you do - even when they claim to be. If they really were, they would have little choice but to quit the church in disgust because objectively speaking the church as an organization is patently untrustworthy at the very, very least.

Thank you. That's what I mean.
 
2013-03-14 10:09:24 PM
i.imgur.com

/Many Cardinals, both sides!
 
2013-03-14 10:13:02 PM

eggrolls: And aside from the few acres that constitute Vatican City, where ISN'T the church an NGO?


The Catholic Church sees itself as far more than just an NGO, it sees itself as the main vessel of spiritual salvation on Earth, given a mission by God Himself to save the souls of the human race.

As an institution they reach back 2000 years, and the legal sovereign status of the Vatican City in international law is NOT what they see as the bedrock of their power.

Pope Francis, in the full context of his statement, is talking about how he wants to ensure that the Church retains its spiritual role and is not just a benevolent NGO, to do more than just feed the hungry and shelter the cold and heal the weak, but to ensure their eternal salvation.
 
2013-03-14 10:20:01 PM

Acharne: mongbiohazard: jso2897: Acharne: jso2897: I don't see the complication. I evaluate an institution same as I do a person. When you do good, I'll applaud and support you - when you do bad, I'll condemn and oppose you. What's the big quandary, here?

Have a look at Mother Theresa, the public opinion and adoration. Then compare it to the actual truth of how she lived her life, the conflict is impressive. That's the problem. Most people trust their religious leaders and cannot take themselves the needed step back to see how it is really 'good' or 'bad'. They are too used to being told and not analysing it themselves.

I know about all that - what's your point?

His point was that the Catholic church has a very strong propaganda machine which when coupled with many people's inherent bias to trust their familiar authority figures means few people are honestly doing what you say you do - even when they claim to be. If they really were, they would have little choice but to quit the church in disgust because objectively speaking the church as an organization is patently untrustworthy at the very, very least.

Thank you. That's what I mean.


Yes - but as a response to what I said - which it was - it's meaningless.
 
2013-03-14 10:20:07 PM

jso2897: fifthhorseman: I thought this was the most interesting bit in the article: "A visit to his predecessor Benedict XVI at his retreat at Castel Gandolfo outside Rome is also planned, but will not take place in the next couple of days, Father Lombardi said.  The visit to Benedict is important, correspondents say, as the existence of a living retired pope has prompted fears of a possible rival power."

POPE FIGHT!

I don't see it being much of a fight. Benedict still has a devastating left hook, but his timing is shot, and his footwork has suffered badly in recent years. Francis has the youth, the speed, and the reach. No contest.


Francis only has one lung.  No staying power.  If Benedict rope-a-dopes him, Francis goes down in the 5th.
 
2013-03-14 10:28:54 PM

fifthhorseman: jso2897: fifthhorseman: I thought this was the most interesting bit in the article: "A visit to his predecessor Benedict XVI at his retreat at Castel Gandolfo outside Rome is also planned, but will not take place in the next couple of days, Father Lombardi said.  The visit to Benedict is important, correspondents say, as the existence of a living retired pope has prompted fears of a possible rival power."

POPE FIGHT!

I don't see it being much of a fight. Benedict still has a devastating left hook, but his timing is shot, and his footwork has suffered badly in recent years. Francis has the youth, the speed, and the reach. No contest.

Francis only has one lung.  No staying power.  If Benedict rope-a-dopes him, Francis goes down in the 5th.


Back when he could still stick and move - sure. Now? Not gonna happen. Ref stops it in the third. Book it - done.
 
2013-03-14 10:40:33 PM
Time for more pope non-news?  Sure.  There's always time for non-news.  Especially catholic non-news.  Because they look so religiousy.  If pageantry doesn't get you into heaven, I don't want to be right.
 
2013-03-14 11:00:23 PM

jso2897: Acharne: mongbiohazard: jso2897: Acharne: jso2897: I don't see the complication. I evaluate an institution same as I do a person. When you do good, I'll applaud and support you - when you do bad, I'll condemn and oppose you. What's the big quandary, here?

Have a look at Mother Theresa, the public opinion and adoration. Then compare it to the actual truth of how she lived her life, the conflict is impressive. That's the problem. Most people trust their religious leaders and cannot take themselves the needed step back to see how it is really 'good' or 'bad'. They are too used to being told and not analysing it themselves.

I know about all that - what's your point?

His point was that the Catholic church has a very strong propaganda machine which when coupled with many people's inherent bias to trust their familiar authority figures means few people are honestly doing what you say you do - even when they claim to be. If they really were, they would have little choice but to quit the church in disgust because objectively speaking the church as an organization is patently untrustworthy at the very, very least.

Thank you. That's what I mean.

Yes - but as a response to what I said - which it was - it's meaningless.


No it wasn't. I understood it. So does Mong. When we explained it, you replied with a 'Hmmmm, I don't think so' and then pointed out it was silly to explain the church. I'm not really sure what the deal is here, but we're being pretty clear. I get your point, leave them alone and judge them on their actions. Mong and I were pointing out that while you might be able to do that, most people who are indoctrinated cannot. This is a valid distinction to make, one that Mong and I have made for you. What you do with it, that's up to you. Please don't call it meaningless though.
 
2013-03-14 11:14:01 PM

Silverstaff: eggrolls: And aside from the few acres that constitute Vatican City, where ISN'T the church an NGO?

The Catholic Church sees itself as far more than just an NGO, it sees itself as the main vessel of spiritual salvation on Earth, given a mission by God Himself to save the souls of the human race.

As an institution they reach back 2000 years, and the legal sovereign status of the Vatican City in international law is NOT what they see as the bedrock of their power.

Pope Francis, in the full context of his statement, is talking about how he wants to ensure that the Church retains its spiritual role and is not just a benevolent NGO, to do more than just feed the hungry and shelter the cold and heal the weak, but to ensure their eternal salvation.


Still doesn't make them part of the government. Looks like Francis is bad at analogy.
 
Displayed 50 of 163 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report