Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by cr2sh, Mar 31, 2005.
So long Popey.
This story broke on Newsnight here a couple of hours ago too, apparently he's a very sick man.
Regardless of feelings related to the Catholic faith, John Paul deserves respect for his bloody stubborn will to keep going.
agreed, he is a strong willed man thats for sure, i hope he goes peacefully
I though he's already left instructions and a DNR...
So it doesn't look good.
huh... Who the heck is going to replace him? This could get REALLLLLLLLY ugly. Is it just me or have the number of fairly important people who have died been picking up pace since 2000? Not claiming anything. Just seems weird. *shrugs*
In any case I've never followed the going-ons with the Pope and frankly its always *shrugs* when it comes to the Vatican I will say a prayer tonight. I hope that if he doesn't make it through this that the end be fast, painless, and peaceful.
I hope he's not in a lot of pain... for his sake. Because he can't refuse nutrition now like many people do when they're in body-failure. Culture of life.
Please don't bring that into this topic.
Whatever beef you might have with him, Pope John Paul II was instrumental in the downfall of the Soviet Bloc and the end of the Cold War. For a man of peace, surely there could be no higher goal than saving billions of people from nuclear incineration.
I respect him probably more than I respect anyone else still alive... assuming that he passes away soon, we will have lost two men (the Pope, and Ronald Reagan) who took on the Soviets and beat them without causing a World War.
sorry. i'll try to discuss only good things that he did.
no, no i won't. i will say that he did a lot of good things. Perhaps more than many popes during their respective careers (certainly he's better than the Borgias). But at what tradeoff? We're talking about a man who says half of the earth's population is inferior because they have vaginas... I don't know that one can discuss the pope without at least giving lip service to this side of him... Fact is, the guy's said a lot of things that a lot of people consider bad. As recently as earlier this week.
Well, i to hope he has some peaceful last moments.
I do hope the next pope does advocate for the use of condoms. Without advocating free sex, him being pope and all .
When the **** did he say that? He never said women were inferior. Where did you hear this? And what has he said that "a lot of people consider bad"? Can you give some examples? I mean, he's obviously going to say things that people don't agree with. He is the leader of a religion. If everyone agreed with everything he said, everyone would be Catholic.
No pope will ever advocate the use of condoms. The big thing in the Catholic Church is that they have never changed a doctrine, and their stance on contraception is one of those doctrines.
They maybe never have. I do think it would be a good move. Or maybe the vatican should invest in R&D-ing a contra-contraception but HIV stopping thingy. We can dream hé.
Imagine what good this could do in the HIV/AIDS plagued Afrika.
edit: maybe he/she shouldn't even advocate the use of condoms, but he/she could just not explicitly forbid the use.
One clarification. There is no sacrament of "last rites" in the Catholic Church anymore. It's known as "Anointing of the Sick" now, and doesn't have to be administered near death. Example for anyone who still doesn't understand: Little kid gets Ebola, but will likely survive. Anointing of the Sick would certainly be able to be administered in this situation. The Pope could have received it any of the times he was ill/injured (i.e. when he got shot) during his life.
I'm sorry, I must not have been clear. The doctrine that cannot be changed is "contraceptives are immoral." That will never change. In the eyes of the Catholic Church, using contraceptives will always be a sin.
Incorrect. The Catholic Church has changed doctrines. A few examples of doctrines that were changed:
- Marriage to non-Catholics is invalid. This was changed in 1818 AD.
- No pope is infallible. This was changed in 1870 AD.
- All non-Catholic churchgoers will go to hell. This was changed by the Second Vatican Council in 1965.
Actually, this isn't exactly true. The marriage thing is not doctrine, but canon law. Canon law can be changed to fit the current times. As for papal infallibility, this was not a changed doctrine, but a new one, sort of. It was always understood that the pope had supreme authority concerning doctrine. The institution of papal infallibility merely formalized this. And this wasn't a change in doctrine because there was no doctrine before that said, "The pope isn't infallible." The Church was simply silent on it. By the way, papal infallibility is very limited in its scope for anyone who's wondering. It doesn't mean that the pope can't make mistakes. It says that when the pope officially states a doctrine (ex cathedra), it is infallible.
As for the all non-Catholic churchgoers will go to hell, I do not believe it was ever a doctrine that non-Catholic churchgoers will go to hell. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Church has never declared who goes to hell and who goes to heaven. It is not their place to decide, but God's. They simply speculate on it. Vatican II just said that not being Catholic didn't automatically send you to hell. It was not really a doctrine, just a continuing discussion of who is saved and who isn't. Vatican II was just a progression of the discussion. And I believe doctrine only has to do with what is right or wrong or what is correct in terms of who/what God is and what He has done, not with what happens when someone does something. (I hope that made sense.)
while him being a great man the church nees a new one the next years (or months ?) and now the question comes up ..who shall do it next ...? i can ony imagine the rumours going around in the vatican ....boy i hope cardinal ratzinger doesn't have a chance ...he's not really "mr.i'm for new ideas"
I was going to say something, but thought twice about it. It probably would have gotten me banned.
What you're saying sounds remarkably 15th century to me.
Yeah, I know my way of thinking isn't exactly "in" now, but if you don't mind, could you tell me in which ways you find it archaic? But don't bother responding if it might get you banned...
Oh, so the pope's in charge.. a real live dude who can actually answer questions. Well, let me just get in line then...
Where exactly is this imaginary hell? Can I bring marshmellows? How about if I hide my sins from god? Does he have a magnifying glass?
Pretty much all of it. But these parts in particular.
I just think "there's monsters in the sea" "the earth is flat if you go too far you'll fall off the edge" "there's a monster in the sky who watches everything you do."
It's all the same to me.
It's clear to me from the snide and smarmy responses in your posts above that you're not capable of respecting the faith of others.
Since you can't seem to respectfully disagree with the convictions of other members, you should indeed stop before you get yourself banned, because you're on the cusp of asininity.
Okay, this wasn't exactly the response I was looking for. I was looking for reasons why my logic and reasoning was 15th-century, not a dismissal of the existence of God and calling believing in God 15th-century.
And it is apparent from your remarks that you do not understand the faith you reject. Before you reject something, you really should know what it is. Christians don't believe that hell is a place in the physical world that you can go to. Christians don't believe that hell is fire and brimstone, but fire and brimstone is merely a convenient image. Christians don't believe that God is a material being who has physical objects like a magnifying glass or from whom you can hide things.
I was hoping for an intelligent discussion of logic and reasoning, but I guess I expected too much.
And please don't say that my belief in God exempts me from being a logical being and capable of the type of discussion I was expecting. I think a belief in God is quite logical.
Death is gods form of planned obsolescence, sticking a feeding tube in him and praying for him is just going against gods plan.
If anyone could be a considered a safe bet for heaven it is the popey. Let the guy get there already. He looks so worn out and tired that I feel sorry for him most of the time.
I'm not sure who you are referring to but the pope is 80 something and he is only human. Important people die every single day and have been doing so for quite a long time.