Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Lab Assistant
#26 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 10:30 AM
Quote: Originally posted by appelsapgodin
1892 Wojtek??

We Dutch told John Paul what we thought of him when he visited the Netherlands in 1985. There used to be this picture of my gay uncle throwing paint-bombs at him from the protesting crowd showcased on my gran's toilet. (Where all newspaper clippings of family were showcased.)


I'd love to meet your uncle. He seems rather awesome.

Are you questionning my badassness? I <3 Glee GO TEAM PUCK :D
Advertisement
Inventor
#27 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 1:39 PM Last edited by appelsapgodin : 19th Sep 2010 at 2:07 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by MaydayParade
I'd love to meet your uncle. He seems rather awesome.
Thank you, he was pretty awesome and fought his whole life for freedoms we luckily now can all enjoy here. He was killed in a car accident a few years back, but his boyfriend (of 25 years, who fled from Hungary to the Netherlands because he is gay) is still a part of our family.

Quote: Originally posted by MaydayParade
And in case you haven't noticed, Britain is in about £120 billion debt.
Excellent point. Thereby, for the record, there were enough protests when JPaul visited Britain in 1982 too.
Mad Poster
#28 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 2:26 PM Last edited by el_flel : 19th Sep 2010 at 2:40 PM.
Considering the fact that millions of people all around the country are losing their jobs, their homes and their possessions, benefits are being reduced, pay increases are being stopped, there is a 2 yr recruitment freeze, all businesses and organisations are having to make enormous spending cuts, and the NHS is totally strapped for cash because the economy is in such a dire state, I actually find it pretty disgusting that millions of pounds of our tax money is paying for his visit.

Sure, pay for his visit at a time when we can actually afford it, but that time sure as hell isn't now.

EDIT:
Quote: Originally posted by dancehallsim
<snip> how this is a primarily atheist nation who really does not want him to be visiting. <snip> I really don't know what affect the pope's visit is having on the citizens of the UK <snip>
This too, is a completely valid point.

EDITx2:
Quote: Originally posted by Wojtek
Your only argument is the current affair in the Catholic church with the abusive priests. It does not affect you so why do you care?
Nevermind the fact that the first statement was completely untrue, I genuinely cannot believe I just read this. [sarcasm] Right, because people only care about things which directly affect them [/sarcasm] Can you imagine what the world would be like if everyone was that selfish?! Additionally, it's not a good idea to go around making assumptions that something doesn't affect someone when you have no idea whether it does or not.
Scholar
#29 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 3:40 PM
Fine. I was going to keep out of it.

You want to know what else there is to hate about the Pope and the Vatican? They don't do shit with sex abuse priests! They don't punish them! They must move them somewhere else!

For years and years, they were spreading AIDS by saying how bad condoms are!

They're out there putting pagans down, while we have pagans in Africa who are being killed! And their fucking rhetoric isn't helping!

Quote:
But it should also be stressed that it is contrary to authentic development to view nature as something more important than the human person. This position leads to attitudes of neo-paganism or a new pantheism — human salvation cannot come from nature alone, understood in a purely naturalistic sense.

Quote:
There are certain religious cultures in the world today that do not oblige men and women to live in communion but rather cut them off from one other in a search for individual well-being, limited to the gratification of psychological desires. Furthermore, a certain proliferation of different religious “paths”, attracting small groups or even single individuals, together with religious syncretism, can give rise to separation and disengagement. One possible negative effect of the process of globalization is the tendency to favour this kind of syncretism by encouraging forms of “religion” that, instead of bringing people together, alienate them from one another and distance them from reality. At the same time, some religious and cultural traditions persist which ossify society in rigid social groupings, in magical beliefs that fail to respect the dignity of the person, and in attitudes of subjugation to occult powers. In these contexts, love and truth have difficulty asserting themselves, and authentic development is impeded.

For this reason, while it may be true that development needs the religions and cultures of different peoples, it is equally true that adequate discernment is needed. Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it imply that all religions are equal.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...eritate_en.html

Quote:
the Pope cited the "rich religious traditions" of Indian people but added that their ancestors were "silently longing" for Christ and seeking God "without realizing it."

http://hnn.us/articles/39125.html

Quote:
For the cardinal, the more the ‘question of God’ is “marginalised and psychologically removed” from culture, the more it “reappears in disguise” and takes the form of today’s interest in the paranormal, the occult, and esoteric religiosity in which reason “is defeated”.
For the cardinal, the more the ‘question of God’ is “marginalised and psychologically removed” from culture, the more it “reappears in disguise” and takes the form of today’s interest in the paranormal, the occult, and esoteric religiosity in which reason “is defeated”.[/QUOTE]

http://www.speroforum.com/site/arti...lf%2C+Pope+says

Quote:
“Paul reminds the Ephesians that before their encounter with Christ they were “without hope and without God in the world” (Eph 2:12). Of course he knew they had had gods, he knew they had had a religion, but their gods had proved questionable, and no hope emerged from their contradictory myths. Notwithstanding their gods, they were “without God” and consequently found themselves in a dark world, facing a dark future … Here too we see as a distinguishing mark of Christians the fact that they have a future… Myth had lost its credibility; the Roman State religion had become fossilized into simple ceremony which was scrupulously carried out, but by then it was merely “political religion”. Philosophical rationalism had confined the gods within the realm of unreality. The Divine was seen in various ways in cosmic forces, but a God to whom one could pray did not exist.” *


*Quote taken from here: http://wildhunt.org/blog/2007/11/th...e-benedict.html

Original documentation here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...e-salvi_en.html

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Test Subject
#30 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 4:08 PM
As someone who's young living in the UK the popes visit hasn't affected me at all as I live in the north of England, although if he had decided to visit York or somewhere near I know I wouldn't have gone. The catholic church has affect my Grandad and his sisters in a negative way since they were forced to attend the local catholic school even though they weren't religious, since they didn't attend church on a Sunday they would be beaten on a Monday morning by the nuns at the school. I also don't agree with their views on abortion (which I have done a great deal on because of school coursework), Homosexuality and treatment of women in the church. I think Catholicism is an outdated institution in the UK and that religion should not govern how you choose to live your life.

To be honest I don't think he should have bothered to come to the UK because he only wants to tell us we're all sinners and that we should follow the teachings of the church. That's all I have to say on this subject.
Inventor
#31 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 4:21 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Wojtek
Your only argument is the current affair in the Catholic church with the abusive priests. It does not affect you so why do you care?
And again you show that you are nothing but a Troll.

Also hitting the agree button on your own posts don't make them more true.
Scholar
Original Poster
#32 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 4:26 PM
I personally think his coming to the UK is a good thing, and I seem to be the only one. I have always considored myself a religious person and have been feeling empty without it the last couple of years, as it has been long since I've had any contact with like-minded religious people. I've looked into all types of Christianity and I find Catholicism really interesting. I just want to make a couple of points but I'm not here to start an argument.

1. The Catholic Church officially recognises that homosexuality occurs naturally, it however thinks that homosexual sexual intercourse is unnatural and that marriage should be between a man and a woman. As marriage is a religious institution and it is against their beliefs to marry homosexual men I can't understand why people are trying to force the Churches to marry homosexual men together. It's a private institution seperate from government so as far as I'm concerned it can make its own rules. On the Catholic social forums I have posted on, many Catholics say that they personally have no problems with gay men and women being in sexual relationships because they think people have the right to do what they want, they just disagree with them getting married in a Catholic church.

2. Many Catholics only have a problem with contraception because they believe it increases promiscity. They want people to wait before they are married, which is a very mainstream belief no matter which Church you go to. Yet again, some Catholics agree that contraception is necessary sometimes. I disagree with the teaching that condoms are evil, but I disagree with people suggesting that the Pope is at fault for the spread of AIDS. He isn't saying "go have sex but don't use contraception!" he is saying "don't have sex before marriage, wait until you're married but don't use contraception then because sex is designed for conception... etc etc". The people at fault are the rapists in Africa who aren't kind enough to put on a condom first, that is where a huge percentage of HIV infections come from, apart from childbirth which is a medical problem, not a religious one.

I'm supporting the Optimist Camp for the Sims 4.




.
Inventor
#33 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 5:06 PM
@Lemon&Lime: Actually I think the Pope does have the right to come to the UK. But I also think people have the right to protest against it. He is a head of state also, not just a religious leader. That I have a problem with his religious stance and his politics does not exclude his right to travel to other countries for state affairs etc. Those are two different debates.
Scholar
#34 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 5:23 PM
@Lemon&Lime

"The Catholic Church officially recognises that homosexuality occurs naturally" - is there anything you can reference? I do not recall ever hearing such.

As for condoms:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.a...ID=8534&Cr=&Cr1

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/co...icle5934912.ece

I must disagree of it being a matter of promiscuity. As is pointed out in these; they have said "condoms do not stop AIDS." Which constitutes to the spreading of AIDS by saying condoms will not work.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
Original Poster
#35 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 5:56 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
@Lemon&Lime

"The Catholic Church officially recognises that homosexuality occurs naturally" - is there anything you can reference? I do not recall ever hearing such.

As for condoms:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.a...ID=8534&Cr=&Cr1

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/co...icle5934912.ece

I must disagree of it being a matter of promiscuity. As is pointed out in these; they have said "condoms do not stop AIDS." Which constitutes to the spreading of AIDS by saying condoms will not work.


Of course condom's don't stop AIDS. Because the rapists don't use them. Saying that condoms are a method of stopping the spread of AIDS is flawed. Yes using them correctly etc does stop them, but their viewpoint is it's not the way to tackle the spread of AIDS - because as I said, rapists don't use them.

Here is a reference to Catholics recognising homosexuality as occuring naturally -

Quote:
In the mid-1970s, the Catholic Church recognized the difference between being homosexual and engaging in homogenital (same-sex) acts. The Catholic Church holds that, as a state beyond a person's choice, being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong.


Source: http://www.dignityusa.org/faq.html

The organisation Dignity USA is a group of Catholic gay and lesbian people campaigning for rights while still proclaiming themselves as Catholics, so I figured they'd know what they're talking about on this issue. It says that the issue is that homosexuals are unmarried according to the law of God, which makes it a Sin. And as they cannot get married under canon law, it'll always be a sin until it is changed. But only the sex part, apprently.

I'm supporting the Optimist Camp for the Sims 4.




.
Mad Poster
#36 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 7:05 PM
Quote:
There are certain religious cultures in the world today that do not oblige men and women to live in communion but rather cut them off from one other in a search for individual well-being, limited to the gratification of psychological desires.

...

At the same time, some religious and cultural traditions persist which ossify society in rigid social groupings, in magical beliefs that fail to respect the dignity of the person, and in attitudes of subjugation to occult powers.


Oh, wow. This is coming from the Catholic Church? They're kidding, right?

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" - Matthew 7:3
Scholar
#37 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 8:05 PM Last edited by Nekowolf : 19th Sep 2010 at 11:59 PM. Reason: Fixed a typo
@Lemon&Lime

Look, we're talking massive numbers here. We're talking... big numbers here. This is not "just rape."

http://www.aidsinafrica.net/people_charts.php

http://www.avert.org/africa-hiv-aids-statistics.htm

Nor does it even matter if it was. The Vatican is saying "condoms do not work" and they mean ever. Shit, they've said it spreads AIDS. We can argue the actual causes of such high numbers in Africa all day, but it does not change the fact of what the Vatican has said.

Quote:
"The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom.
- Condoms do not prevent AIDS. Not "in rape," simply "they do not work."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLI43220920090318

http://www.newser.com/story/53566/p...isis-worse.html
Quote:
"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms; on the contrary, it increases the problem,"


The logic is like this: condoms don't work. Promiscuity is bad. Condoms promote promiscuity. Don't use condoms, they'll make you promiscuous. And since abstinence has worked soooo well... This is the issue. Rape or not, it doesn't change the message the Vatican is sending.

@fakepeeps

If he is, he must have the most subtle sense of humor I've ever seen.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Field Researcher
#38 Old 19th Sep 2010 at 11:28 PM Last edited by pinketamine : 19th Sep 2010 at 11:39 PM.
In some countries of Africa the Catholic Church has a lot of control. Misionaires are the ones who provide information and medicines to the people, and if they follow blindly the Pope's directions (something that many of them probably do) they won't provide the population with condoms, but tell them not to have sex until they are married.

Anyway, the topic was the Pope visiting UK, so this was a bit off topic maybe.
Inventor
#39 Old 26th Sep 2010 at 7:09 PM
I was angry! They are saying we have so much debt and they are making all these cuts to everything, and then they go and was money on THAT!!?? If Catholics want to see the pope then save up your own money and go see him in Rome. I don't know a SINGLE person personally (honest, not ONE) that was HAPPY about this!!

Molesting our children now taking our money, what will they do next!?

(I have no problem with Catholics as individuals, just the religion it's self I find morally wrong and disturbing. I don't mean to offend, just answering this thread as honest as I could.)
Scholar
#40 Old 26th Sep 2010 at 8:38 PM
Quote: Originally posted by supersimoholic
I was angry! They are saying we have so much debt and they are making all these cuts to everything, and then they go and was money on THAT!!?? If Catholics want to see the pope then save up your own money and go see him in Rome. I don't know a SINGLE person personally (honest, not ONE) that was HAPPY about this!!


To be fair, many thousands of Catholics do save up their money to make pilgrimages to Vatican City every single year. He was returning that by coming to cities within the United Kingdom to see his religion's followers. He came because the Queen invited him, at the behest of David Cameron. He didn't invite himself, the Pope accepted a formal invitation.


Quote:
Molesting our children now taking our money, what will they do next!?


The Pope didn't molest anyone's children; he came partly to apologise for the failings of the Vatican after what occured for so many years. Nor did he or the Vatican take our money - we weren't paying him. If people hadn't made death threats upon hearing his intention to visit, the same level of security may not have been required. Some yes, but potentially not as much. The money would have been used to hire said security forces, for doing their jobs.
Scholar
Original Poster
#41 Old 26th Sep 2010 at 8:38 PM
Quote: Originally posted by supersimoholic
I was angry! They are saying we have so much debt and they are making all these cuts to everything, and then they go and was money on THAT!!?? If Catholics want to see the pope then save up your own money and go see him in Rome. I don't know a SINGLE person personally (honest, not ONE) that was HAPPY about this!!

Molesting our children now taking our money, what will they do next!?

(I have no problem with Catholics as individuals, just the religion it's self I find morally wrong and disturbing. I don't mean to offend, just answering this thread as honest as I could.)


Could you please either prove to me that the structure and the rules etc of the Catholic church are morally wrong and disturbing, or admit that its not the church itself but the people who are part of it? People aren't perfect, therefore its not fair to expect the church to be either A) so good at weeding out pedo's that they have a 100% success rate or B) perfect, no one is.

Please differentiate between the church itself and people who do wrong who happen to be part of the church.

Also, to say that you think the religion itself is morally wrong and disturbing kinda implies you hate Christianity? Seeing as that's what it is. How is it morally wrong? Just curious.

About the AIDS point - At the end of the day, Catholics think that the answer to stopping the spread of AIDS is to reduce pre-marital sex - which makes sense in a way, because if you only have sex with one person and only that person ever (which is what the Catholic church teaches) then rates of infection won't be nearly so high. They think condoms are evil because they're associated with either pre-marital sex or sex which is not open to conception. BUT contraception can be allowed for health reasons (e.g. if one partner already had AIDS).

Seriously guys, do some research first.

I'm supporting the Optimist Camp for the Sims 4.




.
Scholar
#42 Old 26th Sep 2010 at 9:03 PM Last edited by Nekowolf : 26th Sep 2010 at 9:20 PM.
From what I understand, though, the Pope essentially IS the church; he has absolute control over it, and is supposed to be, usually, infallible.

However, the Pope has alienated several religious groups and although has such control refuses to let go of some of those sex abuse priests, instead simply moving them to different parishes while investigating an internal investigation.

The thing is, though, is that's being judge, jury, and executioner.

And the problem with abstinence is, well, humans are sexual creatures, one of only a few that actually have sex for pleasure, rather than solely mating. Plus, yes, I suppose technically abstinence would decrease the numbers of AIDS/HIV. But condoms are even more effective. I mean, even IN abstinence, it's still more effective, because condoms actually, generally, work. They are way more reliable than simply trying to get everyone to stop having sex. So why condemn them when they are so effective? There is absolutely no reason outside of religious discrimination. That condoms = sex = SIN! Therefor, condoms must, by association, be bad.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
Original Poster
#43 Old 26th Sep 2010 at 9:33 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
From what I understand, though, the Pope essentially IS the church; he has absolute control over it, and is supposed to be, usually, infallible.

However, the Pope has alienated several religious groups and although has such control refuses to let go of some of those sex abuse priests, instead simply moving them to different parishes while investigating an internal investigation.

The thing is, though, is that's being judge, jury, and executioner.

And the problem with abstinence is, well, humans are sexual creatures, one of only a few that actually have sex for pleasure, rather than solely mating. Plus, yes, I suppose technically abstinence would decrease the numbers of AIDS/HIV. But condoms are even more effective. I mean, even IN abstinence, it's still more effective, because condoms actually, generally, work. They are way more reliable than simply trying to get everyone to stop having sex. So why condemn them when they are so effective? There is absolutely no reason outside of religious discrimination. That condoms = sex = SIN! Therefor, condoms must, by association, be bad.


The flaw with your condoms argument is that clearly they're not working. People don't like using condoms even when they're educated about using them with sex ed at school, how are they going to work in the parts of Africa where sex ed is poor and men are probably going to have the same feeling about condoms (no pun intended) about how they enhance sex or not. The availability of condoms does not lead to a decrease in sexually transmitted infections; just take a look at the UK. They're rising.

The Pope is infallible only from the point on which he becomes Pope. And then the infallibility only goes so far. He cannot be forceably moved from office and everything he says about the Bible is assumed as correct. That's pretty much it. Don't confuse infallibility with perfection. There has been some pretty bad Popes before.

The Pope moved them around until the scandal went public. And he wasn't the Pope at the time it was being hidden, either. Many have been excommunicated now from the church. Makes sense for them to have their own investigation - they have their own courts, and they need to find out how some of them slipped through the net.

I'm supporting the Optimist Camp for the Sims 4.




.
Scholar
#44 Old 26th Sep 2010 at 10:16 PM
So you would prefer abstinence, which also clearly does not work because even priests can't stick to it?

And he's still in absolute control of the Vatican. And just because he did it "before he was Pope" doesn't change anything. He still did it. A murderer is still a murderer, even if he later has a change of heart. He still committed a crime.

And no, it doesn't make sense to me. They have their own courts and stuff, but if they're operating in another country, then they should fall under the jurisdiction of that country. That should include investigation into their organization, at least the branch of that country.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Forum Resident
#45 Old 26th Sep 2010 at 10:19 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Lemon&Lime
The flaw with your condoms argument is that clearly they're not working. People don't like using condoms even when they're educated about using them with sex ed at school, how are they going to work in the parts of Africa where sex ed is poor and men are probably going to have the same feeling about condoms (no pun intended) about how they enhance sex or not.
Ribbed and lubricated is all I'm going to say.
Scholar
#46 Old 26th Sep 2010 at 10:30 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
So you would prefer abstinence, which also clearly does not work because even priests can't stick to it?

And he's still in absolute control of the Vatican. And just because he did it "before he was Pope" doesn't change anything. He still did it. A murderer is still a murderer, even if he later has a change of heart. He still committed a crime.


I think what Lemon & Lime is saying is that it is the former Pope's fault for what occured - he's the one who initially buried everything, and not the current Pope.
Field Researcher
#47 Old 26th Sep 2010 at 10:32 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Lemon&Lime
The flaw with your condoms argument is that clearly they're not working. People don't like using condoms even when they're educated about using them with sex ed at school, how are they going to work in the parts of Africa where sex ed is poor and men are probably going to have the same feeling about condoms (no pun intended) about how they enhance sex or not. The availability of condoms does not lead to a decrease in sexually transmitted infections; just take a look at the UK. They're rising.


STI are increasing in developed countries because people have more sexual partners than years before and don't care about protecting themselves. Most people thinks that STIs are something that "only happens to prostitutes" or make reasonings like "it will not happen to me". People tend to ignore that unprotected sex is risky, for everyone. It is not a matter of sex ed (which could be better, by the way), but a matter of people's attitude too.

About the debate on the Pope and sexual abuse, in my opinion the Church in general has been hiding some of the abuses, and that is a crime that should be punished with jail, not moving the abusers from one town to a different one.
Inventor
#48 Old 26th Sep 2010 at 10:57 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Lemon&Lime
Also, to say that you think the religion itself is morally wrong and disturbing kinda implies you hate Christianity? Seeing as that's what it is. How is it morally wrong? Just curious.


Yes. In my opinion religion is a way of controlling people, stopping them from thinking for themselves.
In stead of teaching children, "do do this because it's wrong" it's "don't do this because you'll go to hell"
It makes people believe that they are weak, like every time they accomplish something themselves that they wouldn't have been able to do it without "god" so when they something bad happens, they are completely shattered because they feel abandoned. they wouldn't feel abandoned if they didn't believe there was something there in the first place. I think it's cruel to give people such false hope. But, like I said, that's just my opinion, and that's why I think it's wrong.
Inventor
#49 Old 26th Sep 2010 at 11:22 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Element Leaf
Ribbed and lubricated is all I'm going to say.


...which were created to combat issues created by circumcision.
The other one
#50 Old 27th Sep 2010 at 2:03 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Wojtek
I get your point. Religion used to reflect the law in the past and controlled every walk of life. In modern societies religion does not interfere with politics or law and its only role is to deepen peoples' faith and some churches also run charity organizations to help those who need it. Unfortunately in some developing countries like Poland the Church influences the law and politics and even economy.


I guess it depends on your interpretation of what constitutes modern society. The first instance of religion interfering with the law that springs to mind is Sharia law. Many modern Muslim societies seem to hold it above actual law. I've heard/read of many instances of it being practiced despite the actual law in the UK such as mercy killings (though, that's probably one of the more extreme examples). Then there's the probably thousands of schools (many of which are in the US) who refuse to teach evolution in favour of creationism because of their religious beliefs. I'm not certain but I think it's illegal in some of these places to actually teach it.

As for religion interfering with politics, well, I think that probably happens in every society to some degree or another. Look at the proposal for the ground zero mosque...that has just about every politician and journalist in America arguing it out on tv.

Guys, rules are good! Rules help control the fun. ~ Monica E. Geller
 
Page 2 of 4
Back to top