Pope Acting the Fool..

[TheEschaton]

Pope Benedict XVI is mentally sub-normal (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060910/ap_on_re_eu/germany_pope_visit)

He started out this speech with an idea I agree with wholeheartedly...


"Put simply, we are no longer able to hear God — there are too many different frequencies filling our ears," he said. "What is said about God strikes us as pre-scientific, no longer suited to our age."

"People in Asia and Africa admire our scientific and technical progress, but at the same time they are frightened by a form of rationality which totally excludes God from man's vision, as if this were the highest form of reason."

Basically, he is saying belief in science should not drown out our belief in God....

...but then he goes on to say belief in God should drown out our belief in scientific and social progress:


"Clearly, some people have the idea that social projects should be urgently undertaken, while anything dealing with God or even the Catholic faith is of limited and lesser importance...Hearts must be converted if progress is to be made on social issues and reconciliation is to begin, and if — for example, AIDS is to be combated by realistically facing its deeper causes."

And this continues about how the German church is open to projects dealing with aid for social progress, but is wary about programs in Africa which deal primarily with evangelization.

THE GERMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS RIGHT, RAT-MAN.

Humankind lives in a "reality-based" world, BXVI, and programs that promote social, economic, and political progress and reform are the programs that touch people's hearts. Religion is no longer relevant in the average person's world today - and that's why science is drowning out religion, not because we're having trouble listening to God any more, but because the "representatives" of God are saying things which are of no use or relevance to our daily lives.

As St. James said, "Be doers of the Word, not hearers only." The New Testament (cf. The Acts of the Apostles) is practically a socialist tract for social programs...none of them said, "You must be Christian", they said, "Because we are Christian, we are compelled to serve." There's a huge difference there, and I think the so-called modern Church is missing it completely.

It makes me so frustrated to be Catholic sometimes.
/rant

-TheE-

[RichardCranium]

>CONVERT

[TheEschaton]

I used up my one-time CONVERT a long time ago, when I lapsed from Catholicism to atheism, and then came back. :(

Now I'm stuck with it.

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

Rofl you're catholic... that explains some of your retarded opinions.

[TheEschaton]

ROFL, you're retarded, that explains all of your retarded opinions.

-TheE-

[HarmNone]

Let's stick to the topic.

[ElanthianSiren]

I read it a bit differently; I read it as a cry to expand the catholic faith (convert people) while you spread scientific miracles (in the US, Europe etc). The reason I take this position is because of what he said about so much involving technology.

I find religions that think their god is the only god a bit insulting, personally. I don't quite understand why they feel the need to CONVERT people who may be happy where they are. Storytime: At my undergrad college, which was near Hope, Michigan, we had whole campus clubs that would gather in the commons, trying to get people to join their club/religion. They would also write things in chalk on the walkways about their religion (no problem with that - freedom of expression etc). I did have a problem with them coming up and trying to convert me.

I don't believe a sincere intrerest in a God comes from badgering people until they see things your way, but if I was interested in their chalk messages, I would seek them out myself.

-M

[Latrinsorm]

In regard to conversion: Sometimes (a lot of times) people aren't going to reconsider (or consider, in some cases) deeply held positions unless you really get in their face about it. Just look at Pluto the planetesimal (or whatever they're calling it these days). Now think how much more people are going to crystallize their views when it comes to something they actually care about.

In regard to the Pope and his talking: Surely you must agree, theEschaton, that if all people were to fully subscribe to the Catholic doctrines on sex, marriage, and drug usage, that the spread of AIDS would be curtailed. Surely you must also agree that the statistical threat of contracting AIDS is not enough to keep people from engaging in risky behavior that encourages the spread of AIDS (indeed, statistical threats very rarely prevent risky behavior). If both of these are true, how is it unreasonable to begin with conversion?

[Daniel]

A major tenet of christianity is that man is inherently infallible. Therefore, it is pretty stupid to assume that all men would be able to fully subscribe to the Catholic doctrine.

[Latrinsorm]

Assuming you meant "fallible" and not "infallible", it is certainly the case that all humans fail sometimes. I do not think it's fair to say from that that any particular human will fail in every endeavor they undertake. Some vows can be kept.

[Daniel]

right. Inherently fallible. My bad. typing while eating.

Anyway, I didn't ask what you thought about man or what you thought was fair. I was referring to the Catholic doctrine of original sin and everything else associated with it.

If you believe that man is inherently fallible than its stupid to believe that any programs that are contingent on them being infallible will actually work.

The *only* basis you would have for embracing spiritual methods instead of realistic assesments when trying to fix a problem is the spirituality itself.

However, if that spiritual foundation goes against what you suggest then by default, you are retarded.

[Latrinsorm]

I think it's just a question of definition of fallibility. I propose it's defined (in the Catholic faith) as "no man can never fail". This is not equivalent with "all humans will always (in all endeavors) fail", which appears to be how you're defining it. By "fair" I meant "valid", not "just".

Even if the Catholic doctrine did state that all humans will always fail in every endeavor, Catholic teaching does not view humanity as adrift in the void; humans can get help from God if they only ask. So even if humanity is destined to fail at everything we ever set our mind to, with the power of God (in a Catholic sense) we would at least get a chance to succeed.

[Daniel]

I think it's just a question of definition of fallibility. I propose it's defined (in the Catholic faith) as "no man can never fail"

I'm not suggesting that every man is destined to fail in *everything* he does.

I am suggesting that man, by nature is fallible. This means that they will make mistakes regardless of how well they embrace the christian religion.

When you're talking about the proliferation of aids, it takes one slip to get HIV and the rest of your life is spent dealing with it.

Therefore, any prevention methods that rely on human beings being capable of following the letter of catholic faith and conviction is inherently flawed BECAUSE at some point you WILL fail.

That doesn't mean that you'll fail at everything, or that you'll even fail more than once because all it takes is one time.

To put it in context, it is theolisticly impossible for "*All* people to *fully* subscribe to the Catholic doctrine because the inability for *all* people to do so *fully* is written into the doctrine itself.

Thus, any "prevention methods" that depends on this happening is a joke and inherently retarded.

In addition, following the catholic faith is not even guaranteed to prevent the spread of the aids virus. In some parts of Africa the infection rate is almost close to 50%. That means that even if you can wait till marriage and yadda yadda, there is a 50% chance that whatever person you get married to is already infected, maybe through no fault of his\her own.

So, what exactly has celibacy in this case gotten you? Absolutely nothing.

[Daniel]

No idea why I capped because, but whatever.

[RichardCranium]

No idea why I capped because, but whatever.

Whenever I was reading your post I suddenly heard the words 'AND YOU WILL KNOW MY NAME IS THE LORD!' in my head.

[Warriorbird]

"No idea why I capped because, but whatever."

It stepped to you and you had to put it in its place.

[Stanley Burrell]

The Pope is my favoritest 21st century false prophet EVAR!!!!!!11one.

/controversy

[Daniel]

"No idea why I capped because, but whatever."

It stepped to you and you had to put it in its place.


Werd. I'm from the STREETS. I sold CRACK!!! That's COCAINE *n word.

Dave Chappelle ftw.

[TheEschaton]

In regard to the Pope and his talking: Surely you must agree, theEschaton, that if all people were to fully subscribe to the Catholic doctrines on sex, marriage, and drug usage, that the spread of AIDS would be curtailed. Surely you must also agree that the statistical threat of contracting AIDS is not enough to keep people from engaging in risky behavior that encourages the spread of AIDS (indeed, statistical threats very rarely prevent risky behavior). If both of these are true, how is it unreasonable to begin with conversion?


I agree with your assessment, but I endorse Daniel's counterargument, and take it one step further.

While it is true that following that doctrine of Catholicism is bound to lead to a lower rate of HIV infection, I also further believe that not only is that doctrine unable to be adhered to completely by fallible human beings, but the doctrine is INHERENTLY UNNATURAL, and therefore, more than just a case of ""humans sometimes make mistakes".

For example, if you say it is a Catholic teaching to not kill people, you agree that, because humans are fallible, occasionally, a Catholic will kill a person (it ends up that Catholics have actually killed lots of people, but whatever). However, killing other people is not in the nature of humankind (!!! a debate amongst some I'm sure, but stick with it). Sex is natural. Sex is good. To say A) you should never have sex until marriage, a completely made up (IE, not natural) ceremonial union of two people, and, B) if you don't get married, you should never have sex at all is ridiculous. People will fail this all the time, more than your average "Ooops, I made a mistake" error of a guy who kills someone, because the sexual urge is a natural one which many people would argue is necessary.

The doctrine of sexuality in the Church is inherently unnatural, and, I believe, antithetical to the teaching of Jesus. It is not natural, and more importantly, not right, to deny the sexual habit. Maybe control it so it's not destructive, fine, but not deny it.

And therefore, for Benedict to lament "reason" as overcoming "God", and yet asking us to adopt "God" over what our own nature tells us (which is presumably from God), is to promote a radically out-of-touch religion to a people who are tired of trying to live like something they're not.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

I believe it is in humanity's nature to seek peace, but the only reasonable ways to attain that are society and murder. I don't think it's essentially unnatural for humans to murder each other, why would it be? It's certainly in humanity's nature to be violent (at times), wouldn't you say? How about greedy? Angry? Hate-filled? Jealous?

Further along the "natural"ness tack, would you not say it's natural for *some* people, for whatever reason, to be pedophiles? Are you saying that we should therefore not discourage pedophilia?

If you are already of the position that Catholic doctrine is Wrong, then it would be irrational for you to follow it at all, let alone meticulously. If, however, you are fully converted to Catholicism (as Pope Benedict no doubt intends), you would not find any Catholic doctrine Wrong, and we would not have the issue of someone saying "It is ... not right, to deny the sexual habit.".
a people who are tired of trying to live like something they're notHow can you not see how this could just as easily apply to people who want to rape or people who want to hate as you've applied it to people who want to have sex outside of marriage?

Let me save someone the trouble. "BUT SEX R NOT HURT N E 1!!!!!!!" Yes, very good. Something being wrong does not equate to that thing being worse than everything else. Something is either wrong or not on its own merits. The question isn't (yet) whether or not Pope Benedict is factually correct in his ethics. The question is whether or not his ethics are self-coherent.

[Daniel]

Thanks for playing Latrin, but the Catholic church is way out of line with its position.

It gets old whenever you lose sight of the POINT of the argument and start arguing bullshit that A) no one gives a fuck about and B) is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

[TheEschaton]

Sorry, I'm not one of these people who believes that to be Catholic, you have to follow everything the fucking Church says. I know Hindus more Catholic than the Catholic Church.


How can you not see how this could just as easily apply to people who want to rape or people who want to hate as you've applied it to people who want to have sex outside of marriage?

How can you be so fucking obtuse? Sex is a natural thing. To have sex outside of a religiously constructed relationship is not wrong, whereas rape, pedophilia, and hate are the result of a serious violation of natural principles, and the moral principle of free will.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

Eating is also natural.

That doesn't mean you need to eat six Biggie sized value meals and a tub of ice-cream a day.

[Latrinsorm]

Sorry, I'm not one of these people who believes that to be Catholic, you have to follow everything the fucking Church says.What's your definition of Catholic, if not in union with the Catholic Church? Can I be a Sunni Muslim if I believe Ali should have been the first caliph? Can I be Jewish if I believe W.D. Fard is (was) the incarnation of God on earth? Certainly I can call myself Christian if I don't follow a particular sect of Christianity, but how can I coherently use a particular sect's name and not follow its precepts?
Sex is a natural thing.What's your definition of natural, while we're at it? You can't just mean something that comes naturally to humanity, because there are few things as naturally intuitive as hate. Is natural animal? Is natural what we did before "civilization"? Is natural what we did before Constantine?
It gets old whenever you lose sight of the POINT of the argument and start arguing bullshit that A) no one gives a fuck about and B) is not relevant to the discussion at hand.I don't know what you think the point of the argument is, or what's relevant to it. I do know that the position you've advanced admits that we will not fail at everything we do, therefore you've already conceded that it's possible for us to not fail at one particular task. Though you explicitly disagree with my position, the argument has been resolved.

I think the point of the argument is the Pope's insistence on keeping conversion on or above the level of social work.

[Solkern]

agnostic is the way to go!

[Artha]

Agnostic might be the way to go, who knows?

[TheEschaton]

but how can I coherently use a particular sect's name and not follow its precepts?

If you think the sect has gone wrong a long time ago, but you wish to change from within, as to from without, which is always less effective? ;)

-TheE-

[Daniel]

Hopeless.