[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

Heh... St. Malachy said so. He supposedly saw the future and prophesized about all 112 popes between his time and the End Of Time. The trouble is: We're now on number 111.

Google yielded this:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...3/180901.shtml

note: this article (and St. Malachy's writings, of course...) was written before today, when the new pope decided to take the name "Benedict" to add fuel to this fire...

Then again, St. Malachy was Irish, which means that all his pronouncements were probalby heavily influenced by whiskey.

Could the Catholic Church be struggling to self-fulfill Malachy's writings? Concerning the eclipse on the day of John Paul's funeral, the church chose to bury him on the 8th. It would have been more impressive had he actually died on the day of an eclipse. Secondly, his successor chose the name Benedict (or perhaps had it pre-selected for him) for a specific reason - and could not that reason have been to appear to validate these predictions? Note, for reference, a believer was buoyed by reports that a different man, a cardinal Dionig Tettamanzi, was a frontrunner candidate for the papacy, based on this author's understanding of Malachy's writings.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Could the Catholic Church be struggling to self-fulfill Malachy's writings?

They have a history of fraud - Mother Teresa, the Fatima sisters, the Shroud, prophecies, etc. It's not just them but other religions too. Rewrite history and manipulate the present to make people fear the future. It's like the war on terrorism and the fictional Al-Qaeda evil doers organisation who have tentacles that reach around the world. Some will go to disturbing lengths to imprison the mind. After all, this is the same organisation that sent people to war, slaughtered its way around the world and stole all manner of wealth from indigenous peoples. But they've got Jesus so apparently they can be forgiven.

[Patty]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

Jews don't build 'churches' and don't want their synagogues run by people with Greek or Latin names. **** I hate myths and lies. Where's them Fatima Sisters when I feel like kicking a backside or three?

Mr. Ronnie of Rose, that is not a very nice thing to say. I suggest that you read up on the subject, as it is quite interesting, and a little bit of spirituality might pick you up out of your grumpy mood!

~Patty

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by Patty

Mr. Ronnie of Rose, that is not a very nice thing to say. I suggest that you read up on the subject, as it is quite interesting, and a little bit of spirituality might pick you up out of your grumpy mood!

~Patty

Darling I'm practically BA and more at this. I would be more academic to make my points but frankly enough stupidity is enough. I don't get my spirituality from books, men in dresses or those who haven't had a haircut for a while.

Critic = unspiritual
Heathen = Satan
Unbeliever = Atheist
Liberal = Gay commie

[Kerrigan]

Move to poli lounge, stat!

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by xenu

Actually you are wrong. I am a member of a society affected by the backwards policies of the church, when that church tries to force those views on society. That means I have a say. If enough people also have a say, the church will listen. It may take a few centuries, but it has changed in the past, and will do so again in the future. Assuming it doesn't want to be completely irrelevant.

How does NAACPs views affect society? How does this view affect a womans right to an abortion, or two gay people wanting to get married?

Why would I care if a bunch of people who believe invisible people live in the sky take me seriously? If they want to be part of modern society, then they need to play by societies rules. If they don't, society moves on and leaves them behind.

If you don't believe this, consider what the church is against, and what most in society would consider appropriate - gay rights, abortion, stem cell research, ...

That is just plain funny in its own quaint idealistic way. At first I thought you were just dense but it turns out you actually believe what you are saying. Are you 15?

�I�m a member of the global society� �If enough people just get together we can change things� �My voice counts�

It�s cute really.

No sweetheart your views are quite charming but it�s not how it works.
The leaders of the free world could get together, men who influence the tides or war, oversee world economics, and are the very individuals who developing countries turn to for counsel and aide. These the most powerful people in the world could walk up to the Pope and ask him to reconsider letting women be priests. And do you know what would happen? The Pope would laugh.

The catholic church unlike some other religions does not answer to political or social pressure that they don�t directly solicit. Not only is the Vatican a sovereign nation but it is the pinnacle of authority for the body of the followers, you don�t factor in there. The church changes its views as it sees fit not as you or your little friends want it to. Maybe I didn�t spell it out for you clearly enough. The people who opt to belong to the church and believe in its doctrines aren�t asking for your opinion and aren�t going to change because you say so. If you aren�t being forced to sit in on Sunday service by the church they are under no obligation to cater to your feelings.

But guess what? It works both ways. The church can oppose abortion all it wants but it can not force Congress to outlaw it. It can consider stem cell research murder but it can not stop a lab from conducting it. It can tell the POTUS to cease a war and war will continue because the Church has no power over that. So you may not like the policy of the church but it is one that can only apply to people who want to abide by it. It is a matter of choice to believe in those things and nothing you do can change that. If their beliefs effect society it is because their numbers are so great and their opinions are so shared by others that they are society�s mainstream.

Also religion will never be irrelevant. The need for it is embedded in the human psyche. It is the crutch by which society stands on from day to day in the face of the harsh reality that is our world. Humanity needs religion like you need air. Consider this, the rates of individuals who attended religious services in Manhattan spiked to like 80% in the days that followed September 11th. Can you think of a more secular, racially diverse, liberal city in the world than New York? No, of course not yet those who are probably among the least religions people on the planet went filing into pews. People turn to religion in times of crisis and pain. It is the warm comfy security blanket an adult never sheds. In the little corner of your soul you will turn to it the day your mom dies and Ronnie�s father will pray his heart out the day his son comes out of the closet. No amount of changes in society will ever undo people�s need for it.

I am not sure why you or others who do not belong to the Church care what a, �bunch of other people who believe in invisible people live in the sky� take quite seriously but you clearly care a great deal. Maybe you are trying to find purpose in this world. Maybe you are bitter nothing in your life has been worth having faith in. Or maybe you and others around here just like to whine like little girls at anything they see as the Establishment.

Which reminds me, what brought Ambush back to the forum?

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Except gay people. They're going to hell.

That was irony from zizban's post in another thread

[Deimos]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

I am not exactly sure why most of you even care about the Pope or the agenda of the catholic church if you do not even belong to it. Half of you denounce organized religions as the bane of humanity and the rest are for the most part apathetic about religion in your daily lives. So either you are resentful that Catholicism has a leg up in its ability to have an organized agenda over all the other religions or you just like to bitch about things that have nothing to do with you.
The countries most people on MacNN live in are is still predominantly run by Protestants so I am not sure why you think this pope or any other would impact your lives unless you want it to.

Perhaps for the same reason that as a free-thinking person, I have an interest in those who have a say in matters of daily life that I have an interest in.

For example; the Catholic leadership is against abortion, I am pro-abortion. Should I stand by and let them have all the say when it comes to public debate on it? Don't think so. If they were silent on the issue, I probably would be too.

[Randman]

Pro-abortion, or pro-choice? There is a difference.

[Deimos]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

Actually you are wrong. You don�t have a say. You have an opinion but its not one of consequence or weight to the Catholic Church if you are not a member.

I don't think you understood what he was saying. I don';t care what the Catholics decide on how they wish to represent themselves in their religion. I do have a say when it impacts on my world, on issues that affect people outside of the religion.

[Deimos]

Originally Posted by Randman

Pro-abortion, or pro-choice? There is a difference.

Are you insinuating that pro-abortion == to forced abortion?

[Randman]

Just don't often hear the words, pro-abortion. Have a negative connotation, imo. I agree with the term pro-choice more just as I won't use the term pro-life for that side of the camp (they're anti-abortion).

[Deimos]

Originally Posted by Randman

Just don't often hear the words, pro-abortion. Have a negative connotation, imo. I agree with the term pro-choice more just as I won't use the term pro-life for that side of the camp (they're anti-abortion).

I can see what you mean. Po-choice does sound more appropriate, though, and it's exactly what I meant, just worded in a less modern way.

[xenu]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

crap snipped

You asked why we should be concerned by another pope. I am not surprised you would fail to understand the concern of non catholics, but that's your failing. It's not a major concern, just acknowledgement that the same crap will continue to spew out of the vatican. Enough world leaders listen to this crap to make it mildly worrying.

Your naivity is astounding. Do you honestly believe the church will never change? That it has never changed 'with the times' in the past? Can you really be that naive?

BTW, your post really shows you for the child you are. If you want people to take you seriously, you might want to grow up. Try it, you might enjoy the experience.

[Zimphire]

I am pro-choice of the death penalty, but I am against using it.

[Deimos]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I am pro-choice of the death penalty, but I am against using it.

Nicely worded.

[Randman]

For an interim pope, Papa Ratzi was the safe choice. He's old enough that he won't be there a long time and he's close enough in perspective to JPII that the Church isn't going to embrace radicalism.

There's still hope for some of the other more moderate cardinals in less than a decade. Politically and spirtually, the Catholic Church isn't going to change much. And those expecting a radical change, needed or not, were destined to be let down.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Deimos

Nicely worded.

Actually it was retarded wording.

And that was my point.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Deimos

I don't think you understood what he was saying. I don';t care what the Catholics decide on how they wish to represent themselves in their religion. I do have a say when it impacts on my world, on issues that affect people outside of the religion.

Perhaps for the same reason that as a free-thinking person, I have an interest in those who have a say in matters of daily life that I have an interest in.

For example; the Catholic leadership is against abortion, I am pro-abortion. Should I stand by and let them have all the say when it comes to public debate on it? Don't think so. If they were silent on the issue, I probably would be too.

No, you are the one who has failed to understand. You are trying to extrapolate the comments I made out onto the process of debate over the issues. What you are speaking of the right of representation in those debates that effect legislation. I at no point have said that it is something that should be denied to someone. What that chick was talking about was applying pressure to change the doctrine of the Church, which has an established position on the issues. She speaks as if were her constitutional right to dictate policy to an institution she is not a member of. I not only disagree but I am pointing out that it is stupid to think that these positions are up for a vote within the Church. It is not a democratic process.

You can go talk to your senators or legislators about these issues all you want and when the times comes, if it comes, they will represent the views of the majority. But as a non-member of the church, any church, your vote or opinion on their stance is meaningless.

[Zimphire]

I love that phrase. "Free Thinking"

I usually get payed to think. You got the short end of the straw bub.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by xenu

You asked why we should be concerned by another pope. I am not surprised you would fail to understand the concern of non catholics, but that's your failing. It's not a major concern, just acknowledgement that the same crap will continue to spew out of the vatican. Enough world leaders listen to this crap to make it mildly worrying.

Your naivity is astounding. Do you honestly believe the church will never change? That it has never changed 'with the times' in the past? Can you really be that naive?

BTW, your post really shows you for the child you are. If you want people to take you seriously, you might want to grow up. Try it, you might enjoy the experience.

No what I have said is that the change that happens is done on their watch not yours. The body of the Church�s followers do not share your opinion nor care to share it. Even if there is change it would be stupid to believe that certain elements of a religion�s beliefs are going to vary. Homosexuality and abortion for instance are not really filled with a whole lot of grey area for the Catholic Church.

Listen, I get it. You are reiterating your point over and over again without even attempting to refute mine. Mostly because you are incapable of it. But in the end I am right. The core beliefs of the church are there. You may find them antiquated and dated but you are not a member of the organization. You can oppose them and the Pope all you want but no one with the power to do anything about it cares to cater to your opinions.
The Church will remain virtually unchanged in your lifetime and the only place irrelevance falls is upon your thinking that it will. If you take issue with world leaders who adhere to Catholic doctrine take it up with them. That you *may* have some say over if you live in a place with representative government. But the Church sure as hell didn�t put them in office the people where you live did. And if they feel that he/she best represents the views they want advocated tough luck for you. It�s not the Pope�s problem.

[Randman]

Payed to think? Payed?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Randman

Payed to think? Payed?

After 28,000+ posts, I am sure Zimphire is entitled to a few typos here and there. . .

[Randman]

A few. But payed is a pretty bad one, doncha think?

[effgee]

Ok - here's my next offer to any mod with a paypal account - will trade $ for lock.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

After 28,000+ posts, I am sure Zimphire is entitled to a few typos here and there. . .

I think I can handl it.

[LaGow]

Originally Posted by effgee

Ok - here's my next offer to any mod with a paypal account - will trade $ for lock.

Agree. This thread has been an embarrassment to the community for a couple of pages now.

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

Triple **** up. Go read a history book.

Why should he, nothing wrong in his statement.

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by Deimos

Perhaps for the same reason that as a free-thinking person, I have an interest in those who have a say in matters of daily life that I have an interest in.

For example; the Catholic leadership is against abortion, I am pro-abortion. Should I stand by and let them have all the say when it comes to public debate on it? Don't think so. If they were silent on the issue, I probably would be too.

I thought the self comforting words were "pro-choice".. Odd that you would chose to say "pro-abortion".

It's people like you that make me more and more Catholic and less and less "tolerant" of other views.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by UnixMac

It's people like you that make me more and more Catholic and less and less "tolerant" of other views.

Catholicism should be of faith. not politics (no matter who leads the church). Tolerance was espoused by Jesus, you know.

[Zimphire]

Tolerence as in, treating people nicely.

Not tolerance as in accepting different viewpoints other than his own. He still called a sin a sin.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Randman

Catholicism should be of faith. not politics (no matter who leads the church). Tolerance was espoused by Jesus, you know.

Tolerance, yes, and forgiveness too. Denial, however, was not.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I love that phrase. "Free Thinking"

The problem with the phrase "free thinking" is that it's a relativist value system springing forth from an absolutist epistemology (that is to say, a definition of what it means to think). This epistemology defines relativism as the 'natural' way of thinking, and lumps anyone not subscribing to this epistemology into three categories: the insane, the evil, and the brainwashed. The similarity of this to the Right's view of terrorists -whether or not that view is correct- is startling, and ought to be noted.

Values and epistemology don't have to be in sync, of course. Your average religious fundamentalist is absolutist on both counts, but it is possible to have absolutist values with relativist epistemology, or relativist values with relativist epistemology (check out Alan Kors' works on intellectual history for an excellent example). However, most people who would describe themselves as "free thinkers" are, ironically, almost as narrow as the religions they abhor in terms of what they believe it means to think. I know of no single verb meaning "to have values" in the same sense as the verb "to think", but such a verb could be used to create a more accurate term ("free valuers" "free valuists"? Nothing really works well).

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Millennium

However, most people who would describe themselves as "free thinkers" are, ironically, almost as narrow as the religions they abhor in terms of what they believe it means to think.

Indeed. And most don't even realize it. They are too busy patting themselves on the back for being so open minded and "modern"

I think sometimes people become so open minded their brain falls out.

[effgee]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Indeed. And most don't even realize it. They are too busy patting themselves on the back for being so open minded and "modern" I think sometimes people become so open minded their brain falls out.

Eerie.

"Like looking in a mirror - but not."

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by MindFad

To better illustrate:



You shoulda known all this Star Wars hype would be good for something.

mindfad where the heck have u been?

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by Millennium

The problem with the phrase "free thinking" is that it's a relativist value system springing forth from an absolutist epistemology (that is to say, a definition of what it means to think). yak yak.

Cough sig cough

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by UnixMac

Why should he, nothing wrong in his statement.

Idiat, King James never founded any religion called 'Anglican'.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

Cough sig cough

"I would add that freedom of thought has an underlying philosophy, which boils down to: give thinkers a choice. This contrasts with religious establishments, whose philosophy seems to be: life is hard and you are doomed, so let us do the thinking for you"

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by ironknee

"I would add that freedom of thought has an underlying philosophy, which boils down to: give thinkers a choice. This contrasts with religious establishments, whose philosophy seems to be: life is hard and you are doomed, so let us do the thinking for you"

I mean, how does a Mac user who hates Microsoft reconcile themselves with liking organised religions that are hardly any different? Mind, Apple sometimes behaves the same way business wise but fortunately their OS is 'liberal'.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

Cough sig cough

Whoever you quoted in your sig, is as clueless about spirituality as you are.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Whoever you quoted in your sig, is as clueless about spirituality as you are.

Double, double toil and trouble.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

Cough sig cough

That's freedom of thought, not "freethinking". Freethinking provides this "choice" only within the framework of its own epistemology. Any philosophy which doesn't agree with this epistemology is considered unenlightened and therefore invalid. I have seen this time and time again, and you ae as guilty of it as anyone else.

It is a shame that the term "freethinking" has been thus usurped. Real freethinkers do exist, but oddly enough, they don't tend to use this term.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Whoever you quoted in your sig, is as clueless about spirituality as you are.

Zimph, I hate to break the news to you, but his sig isn't quite a direct quote of anyone (thus the "Fixed" bit). It's a mutation of my own sig, which in turn quotes our own LaGow's thoughts on the Macintosh design philosophy. Although it is an adequate example of true freedom of thought, it does not account for the absolutist epistemology of "freethought".

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

Double, double toil and trouble.

Um... wtf? You've caught Zimphire in a nice trap, but I don't understand why you're invoking witch imagery.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by Millennium

epistemology

Babylonchilemassif.

See, anyone can use long words and mean nothing too.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Um... wtf? You've caught Zimphire in a nice trap, but I don't understand why you're invoking witch imagery.

Well, I'm not Christian so I must be an 'unspiritual' heathen like everyone else who criticises the Church the Rome. Anyone for a witch burning?

[LaGow]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Zimph, I hate to break the news to you, but his sig isn't quite a direct quote of anyone (thus the "Fixed" bit). It's a mutation of my own sig, which in turn quotes our own LaGow's thoughts on the Macintosh design philosophy. Although it is an adequate example of true freedom of thought, it does not account for the absolutist epistemology of "freethought".

And believe me, I wasn't thinking about the Pope!

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

Well, I'm not Christian so I must be an 'unspiritual' heathen like everyone else who criticises the Church the Rome. Anyone for a witch burning?

But you weren't quoting yourself, and Zimph accused the person you were quoting of -namely, me- of being clueless about spirituality. Are you invoking this imagery on me? You may as well, you know; although I consider myself Christian, I subscribe to several of the more interesting heresies (heretic: from the Greek for "I Choose") out there. My beliefs are almost as different from Zimphire's as yours are.

By the way:

Epistemology n. The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity

If you'd like shorter words, then I submit "what it means to think". Modern so-called freethinkers suggest a great deal of flexibility in thought, but only as long as you subscribe to their definition of thought. To go outside of it is, in their minds, to not think at all, and therefore unenlightened and dangerous. True freedom of thought is not only about conclusions, but also about methods, and this is where the modern notion of freethought falls flat.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Whoever you quoted in your sig, is as clueless about spirituality as you are.

There is a differnce between "religion" and "spirituality".