It's a political entity based on a work of fiction, does anyone really think what they say should make sense.
Posted by Futurama IV Skin (Member # 968) on :
We all know a womans place is in the kitchen or the bedroom.
GO POPE!
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"...does anyone really think what they say should make sense."
About a billion people, unfortunately.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Do not believe that all Catholics believe things like this just because their conservative leaders preach this stuff (do we believe all Muslims are terrorists?). Unfortunately, there is a staunch conservative Pope in the Vatican, and nothing the Chruch preaches will change unless we get a NEW Pope. Though that might not change anything, either.
It's time for change, but unfortunately it will not be coming for a long time.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father..."
Um... Have these people ever actually looked at nature?
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
Did you guys even read the entire article?
The first two paragraphs seems to damn the entire thing, but if you read on, it says the document contains feminist statements.
quote: It said women should not be stigmatized or penalized financially for wanting to be homemakers. It also said women "should be present in the world of work and ... have access to positions of responsibility which allow them to inspire the politics of nations and to promote innovative solutions to economic and social problems."
Those who choose to work should be granted an appropriate work schedule and "not have to choose between relinquishing their family life or enduring continual stress," the message to bishops said.
That's not something I'd argue with. However, maintaining the ban on women priests severely undercuts this position.
quote:new recent approaches to women's issues were marked by a tendency "to emphasize strongly conditions of subordination in order to give rise to antagonism: women, in order to be themselves, must make themselves the adversaries of men."
Such an attitude, the document said, "has its most immediate and lethal effects in the structure of the family."
I have to say I agree with this because of the relationship seminar I've been to. I disagree with labeling women as victims or seeing men as adversaries, which feminists sometimes do. That does not work women want are freedom as well as well as happiness in relationships. However, these statements are presented in an adversarial way themselves, which undercuts what it is actually saying and will invite resistance.
A lot of times feminists also attempt to disregard differences between men and women, whereas I believe in equality but not sameness (which is, you know, totally boring). The document condemns making men and women appear the same, but it does not make the distinction between equality and sameness (at least not in the article), which is not a smart move on their part.
To me, the document seems to be guilty of (aside from having good intentions but shooting themselves in the foot) narrowing the definition of feminism, narrowing the definition of family, and denouncing homosexuality, none of which are new or surprising. God save us from pointless reiterations on the same themes.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tora Ziyal: [QUOTE] It also said women "should be present in the world of work and ... have access to positions of responsibility which allow them to inspire the politics of nations and to promote innovative solutions to economic and social problems."
Ummm....is'nt that kinda against Old Testament?
I personally think Paul's gone waaaaaaaaaaay senile.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
You and half the Western world.
FOR GREAT ORIGINALITY.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
You know, a young charismatic pope who would talk coherently and become *popular* would totally freak me out. For as long as I remember, the pope has always been a sad old man you can poke fun at.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Popes have always been old. That way, if they turn out to be intelligent, charismatic or in any other way threaten the structure of the Catholic church (ie. the one in which the cardinals have immense power) they won't be around long or can be killed off without everyone screaming murder. Of course, it doesn't always work...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I just thought you had to be old and senile to ever want that job: too much security, scrutint nad you cant even keep your own name (for history's sake).
I guess you get to meet world leaders and denounce common sense though, so that's something.
Posted by Futurama IV Skin (Member # 968) on :
Not to mention the groupies.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That's what the security glass on the Popemobile is really for: to keep all those randy Catholic women from tempting him with their lingere and rosary beads.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
You know, Pope John Paul II was actually quite the spry, active fellow when he first took the position. Kinda looked like Patrick Stewart in a pope's costume.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
(insert Borg/Church comparison joke here)
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
He beat back the reds, even.
(It occurs to me that being agnostic on the existence of a god has almost nothing to do with this particular Vatican position, since the majority of people who believe in a god or gods are not Catholic, and even being Catholic is no guarantee that someone agrees with a particular Pope or papal decree. So, anyway, the one thing has nothing to do with the other.)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I'm pretty sure the pope is always old, because popes are elected from the cardinals. And the cardinals are bishops that have been promoted. And the bishops are priests who have been promoted. It's the same reason you don't see any twenty-something military generals.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Is there a quota of child-molestation cover-ups to become Pope?
Mabye just condemning practical birth control, scientific theory, the fossil record and denying any church wrong-doing in the past thousand years is enough to be considered.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:It's the same reason you don't see any twenty-something military generals.
Shinzon. 8)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Alexander The Great.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Considered him, but there's the whole dynastic succession thing. Might even find younger royalty commanding armies throughout the ages, but that's not to say they were necessarily any good! But one Great War general was 25 at the time of his promotion. . .
Yeah, well... shut up.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
HOW DOES IT FEEL YOU FACT FUCKING BASTARD
[ August 03, 2004, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Ultra Manjuice (Member # 239) on :
You're stupid, Tim.
Posted by Ultra Manjuice (Member # 239) on :
You're gonna be stupid and dead!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Is there a quota of child-molestation cover-ups to become Pope?
Mabye just condemning practical birth control, scientific theory, the fossil record and denying any church wrong-doing in the past thousand years is enough to be considered.
Not that I want to stop you in the middle of your carefully considered "OMG PRIESTS FUCK SMALL CHILDREN", but the Catholic Church does actually agree with evolution. In fact, I don't think they argue against "science" on anything, outside of specific "acts of God" (eg, the flood, virgins getting pregnent, and so on).
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: ...but the Catholic Church does actually agree with evolution. In fact, I don't think they argue against "science" on anything, outside of specific "acts of God" (eg, the flood, virgins getting pregnent, and so on). [/QB]
In his book "A Brief History of Time", Hawking said that he had an audience with the Pope, and the Pope applauded his work, but stipulated that Hawking should not investiage the Big Bang itself, since that was a divine moment. Of course, Hawking said in his book that that was exactly what he was doing at the time.
Personally, I'm Catholic and I'm glad that the Church doesn't go for strict Creationism or Darwinism, but instead for a healthy middle ground, blending the two extremes. It's what I believed even before I was aware of the Church's position.
B.J.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...Hawking...had an audience with the Pope..."
Wouldn't that take, like, a half-hour just to exchange two sentences?
[ August 03, 2004, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
They could have a race, the wheelchair versus the Popemobile.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Presumably, this was in the '80's...the Pope wasn't as hunched-over and all that as he is today.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
I would assume that Hawking's computer could very easily translate to Polish. Also, I don't think that the pope has to be elected from the cardinals. In the Second Conclave of 1978, Cardinal Karol Wojtlya (John Paul II) was the compromise vote between two archbishops.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm sure John Paul II speaks more languages than Polish. (Latin, for one.)
Technically, any male member of the Church can be elected pope. Political realities dictate that cardinals are almost always chosen today. Wikipedia says that the last time a non-cardinal was chosen was 1378.
Also it occurs to me that machine translation != easy.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
True. You don't think Stevie runs his speech program through Babelfish, do you?
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher: I would assume that Hawking's computer could very easily translate to Polish.
I'm thinking there were two HUMAN translators there with them. I've seen a video of Hawking lecturing or leading a discussion in real time, and he didn't have his computer, he had a person there translating his gutteral noises. With the Pope, I would assume another translator would be there to translate between Polish and English.
B.J.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I've seen a video of Hawking lecturing or leading a discussion in real time, and he didn't have his computer, he had a person there translating his gutteral noises."
I've seen perhaps the same video, but I think it was fairly old. It may have been before he had the computer, and when he was still in better condition.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: [QBthe Catholic Church does actually agree with evolution. In fact, I don't think they argue against "science" on anything, outside of specific "acts of God" (eg, the flood, virgins getting pregnent, and so on). [/QB]
Really? I've never heard of the church ever stating evolution was a fact much less that they agree with it's ideas: it tends to go against the literal interperation of Genesis.
Got a link on their POV on this? I'd love to show it to some hard-headed creationists I know.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Really? I've never heard of the church ever stating evolution was a fact much less that they agree with it's ideas: it tends to go against the literal interperation of Genesis.
Well, the Catholic Church doesn't teach that Genesis should be interpreted literally. So...no problem.
I haven't got a link though. I'm merely going by what I was taught at a Catholic school, and what I've heard from the local priest, and other people who went to Catholic schools. And that poll they did in the Guardian a couple of years ago where they found out that about 95% of mainsteam Catholic and Protestant priests in this country believed in evolution, 4% were unsure, and only 1% thought that it was a great big lie.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Mmmmmm....christians over here tend to villify Darwin as some kind of Satanist (in truth he was an extremely moral and religous man) and they see all theories of evolution as somehow anti-church.
Being the wiseass I am, I have a "darwin-fish" on my car and several times I've returned to my parked car, to find some creationism tract phamphlet stuck under my windshield wiper (as though believing in evolution consigns my soul to hell somehow).
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Wiggy. I meant something official from the Vatican, actually.
Near my house is a large (ish) "Christian Science" building and I always smile as pass by, thinking that inside mabye Jesus is fiddling with beakers of foaming chemicals while wearing a lab coat.....
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Mmmmmm....christians over here tend to villify Darwin as some kind of Satanist (in truth he was an extremely moral and religous man) and they see all theories of evolution as somehow anti-church."
Well, no. Christians don't tend to do that at all. A small, loud subset of Christians do that.
That's like saying Muslims tend to blow buildings up.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I hear more Muslims calling for peace than Christians calling for scientific open-mindedness.
The vocal minority always spoils everything: they should be wiped from the face of the earth!
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
I was taught in Catholic school that the creation story was symbolic.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I always thought ALL the bible stories were symbolic: not that it would detract from any moral implied.
I'm a big Aesop fan myself.
Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
In a few U.S. states, hasn't creationism been added to the schoold curriculum while in others evolution has been removed? It seems as though it would take more then a small minority to conduct these incredibly stupid acts.
Perhaps the catholic church accepts evolution while many groups of protestants still cling to creationism? As a side note, it is very funny to read some of the 'scientific' arguements of creationists . Unfortunatly, I can see how someone with very little knowledge of science (like most Americans, for example, about half believe that the earliest humans existed simultaneously with dinosaurs ) might actually believe them.
Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
quote:Originally posted by Neutrino 123: As a side note, it is very funny to read some of the 'scientific' arguements of creationists . Unfortunatly, I can see how someone with very little knowledge of science (like most Americans, for example, about half believe that the earliest humans existed simultaneously with dinosaurs ) might actually believe them.
And if you aren't, click that link, as it will provide hours of agony.
The knowledge that these sort of people exist is a burden on my soul. We seriously need to start a fundie reeducation service...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I've had many infuriating conversations with a creationist that's convinced that radial carbon dating is inaccurate and that dinosauors existed at the same time as early man.
Un fucking believable.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Oh, so have we. Read some flameboard threads of yore and you shall know of whom I speak. B)
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Oh we all know that the Earth was created on the evening before Sunday October 23rd 4004 BC. Naturally.
Posted by Nim the Merciful (Member # 205) on :
Just the facts, maam.
Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charles Capps: I take it that you're a FStDT reader.
And if you aren't, click that link, as it will provide hours of agony.
Lol. Until now I've only browsed through a few christian textbook catalogs (they've even got math ones!) when I was a homeschooler.
On carbon dating, it is certainly good for geologically recent dating (it can date things well older then early civilization), but it does actually become inaccurate on *very* old things (many millions or billions of years) due to its relativly short half-life. Plenty of other radioactive elements exist that do the job perfectly well, though.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Potassium-Argon dating, for one.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Potassium-Argon dating
Mixed relationships never work.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Neutrino 123: In a few U.S. states, hasn't creationism been added to the schoold curriculum while in others evolution has been removed? It seems as though it would take more then a small minority to conduct these incredibly stupid acts.
Never underestimate the power of the vocal minority, nore their influence over people who just don't think it's worth arguing with them.
quote:Perhaps the catholic church accepts evolution while many groups of protestants still cling to creationism?
Considering that every Catholic person here seems to have been taught that the story of creation was symbolic and metaphorical, I think we can assume that the Catholic Church's official position is that "lots of the bible isn't literal". I know that will make it harder for Jason to make his "ALL CHRISTIANS ARE SHIT AND EVIL!" arguments, but what can we do?
What actual subset of Christianity is it that the American "religious right" belong to? I am guessing that most are God's Own Party members (which I think is what GOP stands for), but that's a political party, not a religious denomination. Are they protestants, or something else?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Bush is Methodist. Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell...most of the conservatives are Protestants. Yes, we have Catholics who are calling for things like all people who are pro-choice to be denied Communion, but they are not as vocal as the Protestant right. We have Catholic politicians that are Democrats, though--John Kerry and the governor of my state (Wisconsin) for one.
Remember...the Puritans founded our country. The Catholics (many of them Irish) were considered in the same league as Jews and blacks...hence the fact that the KKK hates Catholics as much those two groups. So the majority of the people you might call evangelists preaching on TV as well as supporting President Bush are Protestant.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, no. The Puritans you're talking about settled Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay, but that's about it. There were all sorts of denominations all up and down the colonies. But, yes, they were mainly Protestants.
By the way, Falwell and Robertson are both Southern Baptists.
Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher: Potassium-Argon dating, for one.
That's one of the big ones. Also very important is Rubidium-Strontium. Uranium/Thorium to lead is used quite a bit to date ancient coral reefs too.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I don't think "ALL CHRISTIANS ARE SHIT AND EVIL!" but they are the group most vocally opposed to openmindedness and civil liberties for gays, minorities, science and sex education and are generally in favor of some censorship to "preserve (their idea of) morals"
Ilike Christians: I like their moral structure and the ideal of turning the other cheek and being thy brother's keeper- I just wish they'd follow it themselves occasionally.
As to the "religous right" subset, those are usually (from my observances) southern Baptists that cater to "old southern thinking" -think of old good ol' boys and their offspring.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...but they are the group most vocally opposed to openmindedness and civil liberties for gays, minorities, science and sex education and are generally in favor of some censorship to 'preserve (their idea of) morals'"
Well, they've ruled most of the Western world for over a thousand years. Of course they're going to be vocal about letting that power slip. I mean, who else is going to complain? The Jews? They spent as long being persecuted as the Christians spent in power. The Muslims? Most of the ones who live here probably wouldn't unless they were looking for a place with less persecution. And even those two religions are vastly outweighed by the Christian population. No other religion even has enough people here to make much of an impression.
Posted by Nim the Plentiful (Member # 205) on :
"hence the fact that the KKK hates Catholics as much those two groups."
And yet they try and dress like him. Big brother complex?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Never underestimate (...) their influence over people who just don't think it's worth arguing with them."
Or their influence over people who just don't think at all.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"hence the fact that the KKK hates Catholics as much those two groups."
And yet they try and dress like him. Big brother complex?"
"Him"? Who? Mr. Catholic?
Posted by Nim the Plentiful (Member # 205) on :
Ah, the venerable Feigned Confusion +1, a potent lvl-1 dweomer.
I meant Il Papa. Gown like a Klaner but with gilded threads.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) might actually believe them.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Until now I've only browsed through a few christian textbook catalogs (they've even got math ones!) when I was a homeschooler.![[Wink]](wink.gif)