| The Real Wizard 10.07.2007 11:20 |
Although pope Benedict was making a bit of progress in inter-faith dialogue with Muslims, clearly he's not able to do it with people within his own faith. link Three cheers for tolerance! Discuss. |
| Micrówave 10.07.2007 11:44 |
Thank God for this coming to our attention. I hope you all made note. If it weren't for the link to the story, I would have never seen this much more intriguing story:
It's only about a week old, but a new pizza place in Winnipeg has already aroused attention — not for its pizza pie, but for the racy extra that comes with it. Patrons must be 18 years and older to order from Porno Pizza, which delivers pornographic material inserted under every pizza.mmmm. Porno pizza... |
| magicalfreddiemercury 10.07.2007 11:53 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Although pope Benedict was making a bit of progress in inter-faith dialogue with Muslims, clearly he's not able to do it with people within his own faith. link Three cheers for tolerance! Discuss.Great minds, Sir GH. :-) I just read this article and had the same thoughts as you. I suppose arrogance is an integral part of being a 'believer'. Believers are taught that THEY are the chosen ones, the right ones, the ones headed for salvation. Idiocy, IMO. Though the pope's statement disgusts me, it in no way surprises me. Sad, no? |
| Maz 10.07.2007 11:58 |
Micrówave wrote: Thank God for this coming to our attention. I hope you all made note. If it weren't for the link to the story, I would have never seen this much more intriguing story:Just don't order the sausage pizzaIt's only about a week old, but a new pizza place in Winnipeg has already aroused attention — not for its pizza pie, but for the racy extra that comes with it. Patrons must be 18 years and older to order from Porno Pizza, which delivers pornographic material inserted under every pizza.mmmm. Porno pizza... |
| Micrówave 10.07.2007 12:15 |
...or extra cheese. |
| Mr.Jingles 10.07.2007 14:10 |
I don't think it's even worth discussing what the Catholic Church does anymore. It's like expecting the Bush administration to allow stem cell research. The Catholic Church is clearly heading back to the days of the doctrine and ideology of the inquisition, but the good thing is that they no longer have the power to control the lives of the population. The more the head backwards, the less followers they'll have. |
| Raf 11.07.2007 06:58 |
It says although Orthodox churches are true churches, they are defective because they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope.Maybe in this particular bit it's more about politics than intolerance...? To me, this bit sounds like he's trying to say that although both Catholic and Orthodox churches come from the same original church started by Jesus (or Peter?) and are very similar in many aspects, the Catholic Church is "better", because he can try to set his own "rules" for this one, but he has no power in the other...? |
| thomasquinn 32989 11.07.2007 08:47 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Although pope Benedict was making a bit of progress in inter-faith dialogue with Muslims, clearly he's not able to do it with people within his own faith. link Three cheers for tolerance! Discuss.Mr. Ratzi the Nazi has always been part of the extremely conservative branch of the Catholic Church. In fact, that inter-faith dialogue of his was forced upon him; he was against it, as he still believes Islam, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Protestant and other churches to be heretics. Having said that, the Catholic Church is probably the last place I'd expect to find sound minds and healthy progress. They gave that up around the 12th century, when they last rejuvenated the church. Nearly every major change after that (with the counter-reformation taking the lead) was a reactionary move. John XXIII is a notable exception. |
| thomasquinn 32989 11.07.2007 09:33 |
<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote:Jesus was never said to have started a church. Peter was (supposedly) the first patriarch of Rome, with others ruling from Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem (known together as the Patriarchs of the Pentarchy ['Foremost Five']). After a range of schisms over a number of theological issues during the early middle ages (most notably the debates over which new sects were heretics and which weren't), there was a decisive break, and ever since it has been the official position of the papacy that the Orthodox churches are fellow-Christians whenever they can be of use (it gave a nice pretext for the crusades, which are nowadays accepted to have been nothing other than Europe's first wave of expansion and imperialism after Antiquity), and as enemies of the Mother Church whenever that seems handy.It says although Orthodox churches are true churches, they are defective because they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope.Maybe in this particular bit it's more about politics than intolerance...? To me, this bit sounds like he's trying to say that although both Catholic and Orthodox churches come from the same original church started by Jesus (or Peter?) and are very similar in many aspects, the Catholic Church is "better", because he can try to set his own "rules" for this one, but he has no power in the other...? |
| thomasquinn 32989 11.07.2007 09:36 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: I don't think it's even worth discussing what the Catholic Church does anymore. It's like expecting the Bush administration to allow stem cell research. The Catholic Church is clearly heading back to the days of the doctrine and ideology of the inquisition, but the good thing is that they no longer have the power to control the lives of the population. The more the head backwards, the less followers they'll have.They've got quite a lot of power, actually. To name you but a few example: the Italian Catholic party is obliged to follow the Pope's directions at all times, in Catholic African countries the highest local clergyman's words usually have power of law, and any Catholic who goes against papal decisions faces possible excommunication, which is still used as a threat. |
| inmydefence 11.07.2007 12:08 |
isnt it true that in the bible it doesnt state anywhere that you should worship either jesus or god in a churches? in fact it states quite the opposite? i'm mearly asking as i seem to remember reading it somewhere! i dont know much about religion as i don't believe in any form of god. i dont reject the idea... im just very skeptical.... i believe that makes me agnostic? I find my self reluctant to use the word atheist an queenzone's resident atheist is such a TIT. |
| Raf 11.07.2007 12:17 |
inmydefence wrote: I find my self reluctant to use the word atheist an queenzone's resident atheist is such a TIT.Yeah, I feel pretty insulted by him and his username. :P |
| Micrówave 11.07.2007 12:22 |
inmydefence wrote: i dont know much about religion as i don't believe in any form of god. i dont reject the idea... im just very skeptical.... i believe that makes me agnostic? I find my self reluctant to use the word atheist an queenzone's resident atheist is such a TIT.If I am to understand that whole thing, an Athiest is: (1) Someone who does not believe in any "higher power" or "creator" concept. (2) A misguided Freddie Mercury prophet. He is soooo funny, though, I've come to know him as Freddie Murphy. An Agnostic is one who doesn't think its possible to even know and doesn't accept ANY form of religious identity, not just Christian. |
| thomasquinn 32989 11.07.2007 12:50 |
Micrówave wrote:Correction on (1): Someone who believes (in an almost religious fashion) that there is no higher power.inmydefence wrote: i dont know much about religion as i don't believe in any form of god. i dont reject the idea... im just very skeptical.... i believe that makes me agnostic? I find my self reluctant to use the word atheist an queenzone's resident atheist is such a TIT.If I am to understand that whole thing, an Athiest is: (1) Someone who does not believe in any "higher power" or "creator" concept. (2) A misguided Freddie Mercury prophet. He is soooo funny, though, I've come to know him as Freddie Murphy. An Agnostic is one who doesn't think its possible to even know and doesn't accept ANY form of religious identity, not just Christian. An agnostic has no real point of view on the existence (or non-existence) of a higher power. |
| Micrówave 11.07.2007 15:12 |
I see. Being raised Roman Catholic, I never got around to know the real beliefs of others. Guess I've spent all these years trying to figure out exactly what purpose a Pope serves? *lightning crashes overhead* The last one seemed to be pretty cool, one could almost say "hip" in his later years... but this one gets all this negtivity prior to his appointment and then he does this. And completely redeems himself. He's the T.O. of Popes. Now he should demand a raise. |
| Donna13 11.07.2007 17:10 |
Darn! I thought Sir GH was taking dancing lessons. |
| Bohardy 11.07.2007 18:52 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Surely it's: (1) Someone who denies the existence of any higher power.Micrówave wrote:Correction on (1): Someone who believes (in an almost religious fashion) that there is no higher power. An agnostic has no real point of view on the existence (or non-existence) of a higher power.inmydefence wrote: i dont know much about religion as i don't believe in any form of god. i dont reject the idea... im just very skeptical.... i believe that makes me agnostic? I find my self reluctant to use the word atheist an queenzone's resident atheist is such a TIT.If I am to understand that whole thing, an Athiest is: (1) Someone who does not believe in any "higher power" or "creator" concept. (2) A misguided Freddie Mercury prophet. He is soooo funny, though, I've come to know him as Freddie Murphy. An Agnostic is one who doesn't think its possible to even know and doesn't accept ANY form of religious identity, not just Christian. And an agnostic is someone who will neither deny nor accept the existence of any higher power. The only way you can liken the beliefs of an agnostic to the beliefs of a theist or deist, is by saying that the belief-systems are based on faith; that you cannot prove your belief one way or the other other. ...Which is to completely miss the point that the agnostic's belief is based on empirical evidence (or the distinct and absolute lack of) for the existence and probability of a god, whilst the religious belief is based on...faith. |
| Mr.Jingles 11.07.2007 18:59 |
Every single atheist is a tiny little bit agnostic, but they're just in denial. Just like every single straight person is a tiny little bit gay, but they don't have the balls to admit that at least at some point they've felt some sort of attraction towards someone of the same sex. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 11.07.2007 19:16 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Just like every single straight person is a tiny little bit gay, but they don't have the balls to admit that at least at some point they've felt some sort of attraction towards someone of the same sex.The pope is not at all happy with this statement. Nope. Not a'tall. |
| Bohardy 11.07.2007 19:30 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Every single atheist is a tiny little bit agnostic, but they're just in denial. Just like every single straight person is a tiny little bit gay, but they don't have the balls to admit that at least at some point they've felt some sort of attraction towards someone of the same sex.I know what you're saying, yes. But it becomes a ridiculous proposition to have to force yourself to fit one of these labels. Yes, no-one can truly 100% KNOW that a god doesn't exist; so those that believe so (that a god doesn't exist) are technically agnostic. But, as the great Richard Dawkins illustrates so succinctly, we don't need to go around declaring ourselves agnostic with respect to fairies. Or leprechauns. Or unicorns. Or flying spaghetti monsters. |
| The Real Wizard 12.07.2007 01:03 |
Donna13 wrote: Darn! I thought Sir GH was taking dancing lessons.*snicker* Bohardy wrote: But, as the great Richard Dawkins illustrates so succinctly, we don't need to go around declaring ourselves agnostic with respect to fairies. Or leprechauns. Or unicorns. Or flying spaghetti monsters.Haha... brilliant! Especially the last item. |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.07.2007 12:33 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:The pope covered up plenty of gay experiments on choirboys to be very apathetic towards this issue by now.Mr.Jingles wrote: Just like every single straight person is a tiny little bit gay, but they don't have the balls to admit that at least at some point they've felt some sort of attraction towards someone of the same sex.The pope is not at all happy with this statement. Nope. Not a'tall. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 15.07.2007 17:53 |
As all debate here seems to have stopped (and Sir GH of course had to post something nice and meaty like this for debate when I was out of town for the week! **glares at him**) I will not comment |
| thomasquinn 32989 16.07.2007 07:31 |
Ah, but you just did. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 16.07.2007 11:07 |
^^ Indeed I did. But I didn't say anything about the issue for debate, and probably won't now. :-P |
| thomasquinn 32989 17.07.2007 06:52 |
You will if I can lure you into doing so. And I *will* try, oh yes, I will! [malicious and maniacal laughter followed by a choke and coughing sounds] :P |
| AspiringPhilosophe 17.07.2007 11:59 |
You are going to have to try much harder than that, Caspar. Diabolical laughing doesn't scare me :-P **looks smug** |
| Boy Thomas Raker 17.07.2007 13:20 |
How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster then? It scares everybody. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 17.07.2007 13:30 |
Fortunately, for all of their zealotry, the Catholic Church is good humored when its criticized. "But over the past few months back in Rome, there has been a steady flow of criticism of the now 80-year-old pontiff, much of which also relates to his rigid views on doctrine, such as his speaking out against an Italian Parliament bill to allow civil unions for gay couples. But perhaps the most visceral criticism came when the Church denied Catholic funeral rites to an Italian victim of Lou Gehrig's disease, named Piergiorgio Welby, who had campaigned for euthanasia before dying when a doctor unplugged his respirator. That very incident is at the center of the latest controversy, after an Italian comedian used an annual city concert in Rome to blast the Pope. Andrea Rivera, one of the MC's of the concert, said to some 700,000 youths and a national television audience: "I can't stand the fact that the Vatican refused a funeral for Welby but that wasn't the case for [Chilean dictator Augusto] Pinochet or [Spanish dictator Francisco] Franco." He also tried this one-liner: "The Pope says he doesn't believe in evolution. I agree, in fact the Church has never evolved." The Vatican wasn't laughing, and on Tuesday its official newspaper L'Osservatore Romano went further, lashing out at the remarks as a "vile attack" and "terrorism." "It's terrorism to stoke blind and irrational rage against someone who always speaks in the name of love," the paper wrote." Tolerance, thy name is Catholicism. |
| The Real Wizard 17.07.2007 19:41 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Andrea Rivera, one of the MC's of the concert, said to some 700,000 youths and a national television audience: "I can't stand the fact that the Vatican refused a funeral for Welby but that wasn't the case for [Chilean dictator Augusto] Pinochet or [Spanish dictator Francisco] Franco." He also tried this one-liner: "The Pope says he doesn't believe in evolution. I agree, in fact the Church has never evolved."Yeeeeeeeees... I loooove it!! |