Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

feeder wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I love how condescending and belittling Catholics due to their faith is like, the new, en vogue thing to do. And it's like, completely okay.

Belittling someone for their personal beliefs an insecure little dick move at best. The fact that Catholics everywhere did not tear down their leadership when it became apparent how extensively organized the pedophile hiding scheme is, does call into question how steadfast those personal beliefs are.

Well, I believe tearing down Catholic leadership is technically known as the Reformation.

 Troike wrote:
He is surprisingly progressive for a Pope. Sign of the times, I suppose. But yeah, good to hear.

There have been progressive popes before, but John-Paul II was fairly regressive and he stayed in office over 25 years so he had a considerable effect on shifting things back.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Troike wrote:
He is surprisingly progressive for a Pope. Sign of the times, I suppose. But yeah, good to hear.

There have been progressive popes before, but John-Paul II was fairly regressive and he stayed in office over 25 years so he had a considerable effect on shifting things back.

Expand on that for me, if you will sir.

I just want to see him throw down on some minor demon and smote him with the holy crucifer RoboPope style.

Any Pope who returns people's calls and letters with a personal call is kind of badass.

I know it seems small and maybe even useless but I think a Pope should ALWAYS respond personally to anyone who writes in, that's just the gig in my mind when you take the top job in Rome, you have to guide the church on Earth but more importantly then Church doctrine and teachings, that's guiding the however many million individual Catholics that look to the Catholic Church for guidance in troubled times, and that takes a personal hand sometimes.

 NELS1031 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Troike wrote:
He is surprisingly progressive for a Pope. Sign of the times, I suppose. But yeah, good to hear.

There have been progressive popes before, but John-Paul II was fairly regressive and he stayed in office over 25 years so he had a considerable effect on shifting things back.

Expand on that for me, if you will sir.

Wikipedia wrote:John Paul II significantly improved the Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, Islam, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion. Controversially, he upheld the Church's teachings against artificial contraception and the ordination of women, he supported the Church's Second Vatican Council and its reform, and he held firm orthodox Catholic stances.

cadbren wrote:
Where does Jesus support sexual relations other than the usual man and woman model?

He neither supported nor condemned sexual preferences. But what he did say was;
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35-35)
"When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”" (John 8:7)

 sebster wrote:

cadbren wrote:
Everytime a mainstream church like the Catholics or Anglicans bring in a more open, more liberal interpretation of the religion they bleed members. Evangelical churches are booming though, muslim mosques are full for the same reason.

Arguing proper moral teaching through the lens of what grows the membership basis is insane. If something is believed to be right, then that church should argue for it. Arguing instead that something should be taught simply because it'll help maintain membership misses the point of being a church at all - you might have 50 million members but if you have no positive moral force then why bother?

What Francis has seen first hand in South America is how evangelical churches have grown not because of conservative doctrine but because of their superior "ground game." They're out among the people, talking to people, helping people, and spreading their message. This is in *strong* contrast to the Catholic Church in the past few decades.

That's why Francis wants his priests out among the people and spreading the Catholic message -- and not the two- or three-issue message we've heard in recent years like the article describes.

From where I sit, he's actually *very* focused on membership. He just realizes the church needs to adapt in order to grow. And that's fine and healthy -- that's what makes it a living religion IMO.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NELS1031 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Troike wrote:
He is surprisingly progressive for a Pope. Sign of the times, I suppose. But yeah, good to hear.

There have been progressive popes before, but John-Paul II was fairly regressive and he stayed in office over 25 years so he had a considerable effect on shifting things back.

Expand on that for me, if you will sir.

Wikipedia wrote:John Paul II significantly improved the Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, Islam, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion. Controversially, he upheld the Church's teachings against artificial contraception and the ordination of women, he supported the Church's Second Vatican Council and its reform, and he held firm orthodox Catholic stances.

Now show me the "considerable effect on shifting things back". What you quoted just said he upheld doctrines that have been the case for centuries. AD ~195 for teachings against contraception, AD ~50 for teachings against abortion, AD ~189 for the ban on the ordination of women. There has been and will be no "progressive Pope" who will or even could change those Church teachings.

 gorgon wrote:
What Francis has seen first hand in South America is how evangelical churches have grown not because of conservative doctrine but because of their superior "ground game."

Agreed - evangelical churches have marketed themselves better and more aggressively for a while now - and that's likely driven most of their rise relative to the main line protestant churches.

But even if that weren't true, even if people essentially hungered for the pettiness of small, literal rules to be obeyed over and above a broader, more complex morality... that'd still be no reason to do it. Give them what they want and grow is advice for businesses who just want to make money, as an approach for churches its crazy.

 NELS1031 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NELS1031 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Troike wrote:
He is surprisingly progressive for a Pope. Sign of the times, I suppose. But yeah, good to hear.

There have been progressive popes before, but John-Paul II was fairly regressive and he stayed in office over 25 years so he had a considerable effect on shifting things back.

Expand on that for me, if you will sir.

Wikipedia wrote:John Paul II significantly improved the Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, Islam, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion. Controversially, he upheld the Church's teachings against artificial contraception and the ordination of women, he supported the Church's Second Vatican Council and its reform, and he held firm orthodox Catholic stances.

Now show me the "considerable effect on shifting things back". What you quoted just said he upheld doctrines that have been the case for centuries. AD ~195 for teachings against contraception, AD ~50 for teachings against abortion, AD ~189 for the ban on the ordination of women. There has been and will be no "progressive Pope" who will or even could change those Church teachings.

Bad choice of words on his part, I suspect.

Still, I hope you're not arguing that JPII wasn't a conservative Pope. Because he was.

 gorgon wrote:

 NELS1031 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NELS1031 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Troike wrote:
He is surprisingly progressive for a Pope. Sign of the times, I suppose. But yeah, good to hear.

There have been progressive popes before, but John-Paul II was fairly regressive and he stayed in office over 25 years so he had a considerable effect on shifting things back.

Expand on that for me, if you will sir.

Wikipedia wrote:John Paul II significantly improved the Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, Islam, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion. Controversially, he upheld the Church's teachings against artificial contraception and the ordination of women, he supported the Church's Second Vatican Council and its reform, and he held firm orthodox Catholic stances.

Now show me the "considerable effect on shifting things back". What you quoted just said he upheld doctrines that have been the case for centuries. AD ~195 for teachings against contraception, AD ~50 for teachings against abortion, AD ~189 for the ban on the ordination of women. There has been and will be no "progressive Pope" who will or even could change those Church teachings.

Bad choice of words on his part, I suspect.

Still, I hope you're not arguing that JPII wasn't a conservative Pope. Because he was.

I'm saying that doctrinally he was the same as the entire line of successors.

It takes a bold man to say what Francis has said here. I think that the Catholic church certainly needs to progress on it's view of certain things.

The gay marriage/abortion part will be a contentious point for many. Some people will quote old Testament, some will quote New. It's an argument that will never end.

But look past that to the third part: contraception. There is nothing in the Bible that says you can't shrinkwrap your bolter to prevent a misfire that ends up with 2 lives being ruined .

It never made sense to me, that the Catholic church would easily forgive fornication and adultery, but NOT if you used protection. It's a double standard that is VERY present in lower income areas. Plenty of Catholics, and sex is free(mostly) so those who can't afford to go jet skiing get down and sin. But they don't use any protection, get pregnant all the damn time and have to live with that. As opposed to just tacking on the made up sin of a condom onto the already known sin of fornicating.

Possibly the stupidest double standard I've seen in my life.

/rant

Good for the Pope, Lord knows the CC needs some major PR help.

 NELS1031 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 NELS1031 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NELS1031 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Troike wrote:
He is surprisingly progressive for a Pope. Sign of the times, I suppose. But yeah, good to hear.

There have been progressive popes before, but John-Paul II was fairly regressive and he stayed in office over 25 years so he had a considerable effect on shifting things back.

Expand on that for me, if you will sir.

Wikipedia wrote:John Paul II significantly improved the Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, Islam, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion. Controversially, he upheld the Church's teachings against artificial contraception and the ordination of women, he supported the Church's Second Vatican Council and its reform, and he held firm orthodox Catholic stances.

Now show me the "considerable effect on shifting things back". What you quoted just said he upheld doctrines that have been the case for centuries. AD ~195 for teachings against contraception, AD ~50 for teachings against abortion, AD ~189 for the ban on the ordination of women. There has been and will be no "progressive Pope" who will or even could change those Church teachings.

Bad choice of words on his part, I suspect.

Still, I hope you're not arguing that JPII wasn't a conservative Pope. Because he was.

I'm saying that doctrinally he was the same as the entire line of successors.

He wasn't.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
He wasn't.

Tldr.

Now once again, expand on that for me, if you will sir.

Show me what doctrines he changed, show me what progressive ideas he rolled back, show me how the Catholic Church regressed under his tenure.

 cincydooley wrote:
I love how condescending and belittling Catholics due to their faith is like, the new, en vogue thing to do. And it's like, completely okay.

same with Mormons but... they are cooky... trust me I know
(i'm known as an investigator to them)

cadbren wrote:Where does Jesus support sexual relations other than the usual man and woman model?

Do you mean other than prancing around with a group of dudes like an ancient-world Menudo?

cincydooley wrote:I love how condescending and belittling Catholics due to their faith is like, the new, en vogue thing to do. And it's like, completely okay.

Don't single out Catholics here, snowflake. Everyone gets to deal with it. I think it's something about the polarizing effect of an institution that exists for the purpose of judging others.

 NELS1031 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
He wasn't.

Tldr.

Now once again, expand on that for me, if you will sir.

Show me what doctrines he changed, show me what progressive ideas he rolled back, show me how the Catholic Church regressed under his tenure.

You can find that from the footnotes in the Wikipedia article.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NELS1031 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
He wasn't.

Tldr.

Now once again, expand on that for me, if you will sir.

Show me what doctrines he changed, show me what progressive ideas he rolled back, show me how the Catholic Church regressed under his tenure.

You can find that from the footnotes in the Wikipedia article.

Highlight it for me, as I'm not seeing it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NELS1031 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
He wasn't.

Tldr.

Now once again, expand on that for me, if you will sir.

Show me what doctrines he changed, show me what progressive ideas he rolled back, show me how the Catholic Church regressed under his tenure.

You can find that from the footnotes in the Wikipedia article.

Telling other people to dig through 285 links, to find evidence supporting your own claim? Bad internet debate form man, real bad.

-Shrike- wrote:
I'm also Catholic, and I consider this pope to be a welcome change. I wholeheartedly support moving away from the small rules!

He's not moving away from the small rules though, he's admitting that those rules are small on the grand scheme of things, and refocusing obsession with minutiae back to a focus on the macroscopic.

Astohim not being right wing.... Well... Heis, after all, still a catholic....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quoting a Wikipedia article, that goes against your argument, and then using it as support for your argument, is bad debate. Full stop. Using Wikipedia is crap to begin with, and it's crap to slant the quote fromwikipedia too. I noticed the part that read:". Held firm on all orthodox catholic stances." kind of a giveaway for conservative.

 Aerethan wrote:
There is nothing in the Bible that says you can't shrinkwrap your bolter to prevent a misfire that ends up with 2 lives being ruined .

It never made sense to me, that the Catholic church would easily forgive fornication and adultery, but NOT if you used protection. It's a double standard that is VERY present in lower income areas. Plenty of Catholics, and sex is free(mostly) so those who can't afford to go jet skiing get down and sin. But they don't use any protection, get pregnant all the damn time and have to live with that. As opposed to just tacking on the made up sin of a condom onto the already known sin of fornicating.

Possibly the stupidest double standard I've seen in my life.

The penalty for one mortal sin is the same as for two.

Also there's nothing in the bible mentioning the Trinity either..

 azazel the cat wrote:
I think it's something about the polarizing effect of an institution that exists for the purpose of judging others.

If you honestly believe that's the reason the Catholic church exists, you need to go back to anyone who educated you at any point in your life and beat them senseless for how poorly they served you.

 Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I think it's something about the polarizing effect of an institution that exists for the purpose of judging others.

If you honestly believe that's the reason the Catholic church exists, you need to go back to anyone who educated you at any point in your life and beat them senseless for how poorly they served you.

I think he's referring to the few bad apples that use the bible to judge others, who give the church a bad rep. I've encountered a few who use it to judge others. At the same time I've encountered more folks who use it to do good for themselves and unto others.

 Soteks Prophet wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
There is nothing in the Bible that says you can't shrinkwrap your bolter to prevent a misfire that ends up with 2 lives being ruined .

It never made sense to me, that the Catholic church would easily forgive fornication and adultery, but NOT if you used protection. It's a double standard that is VERY present in lower income areas. Plenty of Catholics, and sex is free(mostly) so those who can't afford to go jet skiing get down and sin. But they don't use any protection, get pregnant all the damn time and have to live with that. As opposed to just tacking on the made up sin of a condom onto the already known sin of fornicating.

Possibly the stupidest double standard I've seen in my life.

The penalty for one mortal sin is the same as for two.

Also there's nothing in the bible mentioning the Trinity either..

Except for those bits in the New Testament. You know. The only part that should really matter to Christians. The divinity of the Son and the divine nature of the holy spirit are pretty clearly laid out in the gospels.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I think it's something about the polarizing effect of an institution that exists for the purpose of judging others.

If you honestly believe that's the reason the Catholic church exists, you need to go back to anyone who educated you at any point in your life and beat them senseless for how poorly they served you.

Do you honestly want to get into this debate with a guy with a history degree? Like, seriously? Whatever you might think is the purpose of the Catholic faith is one thing, but the institution of the Catholic church is absolutely social control and the accumulation of wealth, and if you truly want to get into that with me, then I'm going to request that you do a little pre-requisite reading on the history of the Catholic church and its practices, so that I need not spend hours and hours just bringing you up to speed.

The mere idea that you do not believe Catholicism is rooted in judgement of others is honestly baffling; I have no idea what kinda of Catholicism you can possibly subscribe to without recognizing that every core tenet is built upon judgement.

 Soteks Prophet wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
There is nothing in the Bible that says you can't shrinkwrap your bolter to prevent a misfire that ends up with 2 lives being ruined .

It never made sense to me, that the Catholic church would easily forgive fornication and adultery, but NOT if you used protection. It's a double standard that is VERY present in lower income areas. Plenty of Catholics, and sex is free(mostly) so those who can't afford to go jet skiing get down and sin. But they don't use any protection, get pregnant all the damn time and have to live with that. As opposed to just tacking on the made up sin of a condom onto the already known sin of fornicating.

Possibly the stupidest double standard I've seen in my life.

The penalty for one mortal sin is the same as for two.

Also there's nothing in the bible mentioning the Trinity either..

Which is my point. If you are going to knowingly sin, why not go all in? It's eternal damnation either way.

I also find the concept of priests as intermediaries between us and God to be a ridiculous concept.

I have a long list of things about the Catholic Church that I disagree with, but most of those aren't relevant to their public image. I disagree because I simply believe otherwise, and I'm stubborn enough that there won't be a compromise.

Sadly most people as stubborn about their faith as I am are also extremists who think they need to shove it down everyone else's throat. I'm fine with other people believing what I do not believe.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Do you honestly want to get into this debate with a guy with a history degree? Like, seriously?

Sure. I've got one, too, and from a better school.

Whatever you might think is the purpose of the Catholic faith is one thing, but the institution of the Catholic church is absolutely social control and the accumulation of wealth, and if you truly want to get into that with me, then I'm going to request that you do a little pre-requisite reading on the history of the Catholic church and its practices, so that I need not spend hours and hours just bringing you up to speed.

The mere idea that you do not believe Catholicism is rooted in judgement of others is honestly baffling; I have no idea what kinda of Catholicism you can possibly subscribe to without recognizing that every core tenet is built upon judgement.

I don't subscribe to any kind of Catholicism. I'm an atheist.

But I also actually paid attention during my history classes, and beyond that and know that there's a difference between individuals within an institution using that institution to accumulate wealth and gain social control, and the institution being designed explicitly for that.

So, again. Anyone who ever educated you needs a solid beating.

I don't think you need a history degree to know that any society/institution is built around judgement.

Your workplace judges you, your particular social circles judge you, your family judges you, etc. There are social norms and mores in every level of society. Knocking the Catholic Church like its totally unique in that its teachings expects a certain standard and then proscribes penalties or admonitions when that standard is not met or disregarded is disingenuous.

Next time you are driving, drive ridiculously below the speed limit, or excessively above it. Don't where a seat belt. Turn your dubstep up to ludicrous levels. Start texting to you BFF. If no one has notified authorities about you after a time, then drive by a law enforcement officer whose entire existence is to find folks for someone higher up in the law enforcement system to judge.

Then when you are out of court, go to a Church. Confess your dangerous traffic sins to the priest. Now which one of the two institutions is going to take you away from your family for some time, fine you, keep a detailed record of your transgressions, publicly admonish you, make you do community service?

And in regards to accumulating wealth, everything has to in order to carry out its agenda in society. There is nothing intrinsically evil in accumulating wealth, but in its how its spent. Again, the Catholic Church institution is not unique in that regard. Arguing that it is, is again disingenuous.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Do you honestly want to get into this debate with a guy with a history degree? Like, seriously?

Sure. I've got one, too, and from a better school.

I seriously doubt the latter element of your claim.

Seaward wrote:

Whatever you might think is the purpose of the Catholic faith is one thing, but the institution of the Catholic church is absolutely social control and the accumulation of wealth, and if you truly want to get into that with me, then I'm going to request that you do a little pre-requisite reading on the history of the Catholic church and its practices, so that I need not spend hours and hours just bringing you up to speed.

The mere idea that you do not believe Catholicism is rooted in judgement of others is honestly baffling; I have no idea what kinda of Catholicism you can possibly subscribe to without recognizing that every core tenet is built upon judgement.

I don't subscribe to any kind of Catholicism. I'm an atheist.

But I also actually paid attention during my history classes, and beyond that and know that there's a difference between individuals within an institution using that institution to accumulate wealth and gain social control, and the institution being designed explicitly for that.

"Individuals within an institution" is only an excuse when said institution doesn't have a solitary man at the top who is said to speak for a divine power. The entire institution is designed to create the circumstances of whatever he says, goes. Such is the nature of every grift wherein a conman claims to speak for the divine. You inability to recognize that honestly does make me sad.

Even if, once upon a time (doubtful still) the Catholic Church wasn't geared towards social control and wealth accumulation, your silly "a few bad eggs" idea altered the structure of the institution such that the machinations of those bad eggs is now the status quo, and has been for over a thousand years.

NELS1031 wrote:I don't think you need a history degree to know that any society/institution is built around judgement.

Your workplace judges you, your particular social circles judge you, your family judges you, etc. There are social norms and mores in every level of society. Knocking the Catholic Church like its totally unique in that its teachings expects a certain standard and then proscribes penalties or admonitions when that standard is not met or disregarded is disingenuous.

Next time you are driving, drive ridiculously below the speed limit, or excessively above it. Don't where a seat belt. Turn your dubstep up to ludicrous levels. Start texting to you BFF. If no one has notified authorities about you after a time, then drive by a law enforcement officer whose entire existence is to find folks for someone higher up in the law enforcement system to judge.

And in regards to accumulating wealth, everything has to in order to carry out its agenda in society. There is nothing intrinsically evil in accumulating wealth, but in its how its spent. Again, the Catholic Church institution is not unique in that regard. Arguing that it is, is again disingenuous.

It's been a while since I've seen a shotgun loaded with so much bs.
1) Nobody said the Catholic Church is unique; so please stop projecting that.
2) Not being unique in its dickishness does not make that dickishness okay by any stretch.
3) The government doesn't claim to speak for a divine power, and thus I am able to participate in the legislative process, thereby creating a reasonable basis for my tacit participation and acceptance of its institutionalized judicial processes.
4) Nobody ever said that the accumulation of wealth was intrinsically evil, so if you want to participate in this discussion, you should try to keep up.
5) Since you brought it up, the accumulation of wealth from an organization that claims to be charitable is pretty disingenuous, particularly when paired with the fact that it uses its standing as an instution to claim it speaks for the divine in order to coerce that wealth out of people.