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.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/07/10/vatican-church.html
Three cheers for tolerance!
Discuss.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
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:
[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]
mmmm. Porno pizza...
[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]
mmmm. Porno pizza...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/07/10/vatican-church.html
Three cheers for tolerance!
Discuss.
[/QUOTE]
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?
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/07/10/vatican-church.html
Three cheers for tolerance!
Discuss.
[/QUOTE]
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?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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:
[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]
mmmm. Porno pizza...
[/QUOTE]
Just don't order the sausage pizza
[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]
mmmm. Porno pizza...
[/QUOTE]
Just don't order the sausage pizza
...or extra cheese.
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.
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.
[QUOTE]It says although Orthodox churches are true churches, they are defective because they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope.[/QUOTE]
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...?
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...?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/07/10/vatican-church.html
Three cheers for tolerance!
Discuss.
[/QUOTE]
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.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/07/10/vatican-church.html
Three cheers for tolerance!
Discuss.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE]It says although Orthodox churches are true churches, they are defective because they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope.[/QUOTE]
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...?[/QUOTE]
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.
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...?[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]inmydefence wrote: [/QUOTENAME] I find my self reluctant to use the word atheist an queenzone's resident atheist is such a TIT.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I feel pretty insulted by him and his username. :P
Yeah, I feel pretty insulted by him and his username. :P
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]inmydefence wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]inmydefence wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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.[/QUOTE]
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
*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.