Latest News Article

[CosmicSpore]

Catmando, on 12 February 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

That may be what he wants, but clothing it in the language of a "political move" reminds me of Putin installing his successor/protege or something, and the Pope =/= Putin (thank God, too; imagine all the shirtless pics). Oh well. You haven't cast him as Palpatine or something, so I don't really mind.

Catmando, on 12 February 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

As far younger successors, the youngest on this list of frontrunners seems to be Cardinal Tagle.

A little too young.
I believe he was aiming more toward this guy: http://en.wikipedia....stoph_Schönborn

It makes perfect sense... Schonborn was the Pope's pupil. He favors him to be the next Pope.

Not quite that young, but certainly young enough to be Pope, and about 10 years younger than Ratzinger was when he was chosen.

[Catmando]

CosmicSpore, on 12 February 2013 - 11:44 PM, said:

A little too young.
I believe he was aiming more toward this guy: http://en.wikipedia....stoph_Schönborn

It makes perfect sense... Schonborn was the Pope's pupil. He favors him to be the next Pope.

Not quite that young, but certainly young enough to be Pope, and about 10 years younger than Ratzinger was when he was chosen.

Schonborn seems all right. Needs more wild speculation, though! Who was the last cardinal to be elevated?! Was his name Peter?! How liberal can we be with the definition of "Rome"?!

[CosmicSpore]

Catmando, on 12 February 2013 - 11:56 PM, said:

Schonborn seems all right. Needs more wild speculation, though! Who was the last cardinal to be elevated?! Was his name Peter?! How liberal can we be with the definition of "Rome"?!

Well the Vatican is basically part of Rome, and the Pope is considered to be the 'Bishop of Rome'.... So that one is already covered.

As for the name... They will either elect Peter Turkson, or the new Pope will take the name of 'Peter'.

....And thus they fulfilled the prophecies. The end.

[Sakyamuni]

If the new pope is indeed called Peter it will cause me to become very excited indeed.

I also hope more lightening strikes the tall lightening rod many more times to prove how much god truly hates lightening rods.

[Kingkodfish]

Has this turned into a religious debate yet?  I'll be honest I didn't bother reading past the first page, from what I saw, after pressing the post button I'll be in the world of "God is as real as an oompa loompa." and "Religion is the source of all evil.".  Oh well here I go!

[diamond_rake]

I wonder what kind of pressure he is under and who is providing it.

[sikcool]

CosmicSpore, on 12 February 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

Ah, well... I read your post the wrong way then. Most of the time people are trying to make some really lame argument... (Although you did do some of that, too.)

Anyways, you can't just "hate religion" because there are hundreds (even thousands, depending how you count them) of different religions in the world, most of them unrelated to each other, and the term "religion" itself is pretty vague and could mean many things.

In essence a "religion" is simply just "a belief system", it doesn't have much more meaning than that except in specific contexts.
Everyone has a belief system, so to "hate" something everyone has is.... well, just ignorant.

Of course, in context, religion often means to refer to belief systems regarding things you "can't prove".... but even then you will find that everyone believes in this things!
You can't prove reality exists, can you? No!
Can you prove that the world around you isn't an illusion and that you're not just dreaming right now? Nope!

In deeper context, and removing many things society calls "religion", "religion" means beliefs surrounding a god or gods. In this case there is possibly something there to dislike, but hate? I don't think you could form such an opinion about someone else's thoughts that do not necessarily affect anyone else.

So let's skip down to what "it really means" when people use it in the sentence "I hate religion"....

So we go down to the deepest context, where the term "religion" is often misused, abused, and in no way represents what it was intended to represent.
In this case it means specifically zealous fundamentalist "Abrahamic Religion", which includes fundamentalists from Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
In this circumstance, someone might actually have something to "hate" about these religions... possibly many things.... However, there is no reason or sensible explanation as to why the term "religion" is used instead of an enormous amount of other terms which aren't quite as ignorant to speak of and actually express the point one is trying to make about fundamentalist ideologies.

"Fundamentalism" (or even "Abrahamic religions" in some cases) would be more correct terms to use instead of "religion", which might help one to convey their contempt for what it is actually directed at.

So... we really must question what "religion" even means... in which case, the entire term simply just falls apart... It doesn't really mean much of anything. It's just a bad label people slap on a huge group of things that they don't really understand.

So to say you "hate" this indiscernible concept that has no true identity? It's simply ignorant.
There are much clearer and better ways for someone to express themselves in a way that makes more sense.

So saying that you hate religion, is the same as saying that you hate every belief system ever.
However, it depends on how you would define religion, which is why it is ignorant to hate something that could be and mean so many different things.
That's how i understood it, at least. Did i get it right?

[FireroseNekowolf]

sikcool, on 13 February 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

So saying that you hate religion, is the same as saying that you hate every belief system ever.
However, it depends on how you would define religion, which is why it is ignorant to hate something that could be and mean so many different things.
That's how i understood it, at least. Did i get it right?

Think of it this way - how can you hate what you do not know? If I was to ask, do you hate Wicca, Heathenry, Hellenicism, Celtic Druidism, or generally whatever faith you probably never heard of or know nothing about, would you say you hate them? To say you hate "all religions" then you are saying yes.

[CosmicSpore]

sikcool, on 13 February 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

So saying that you hate religion, is the same as saying that you hate every belief system ever.

Not exactly... The word CAN represent practically every belief system, but usually doesn't. It usually only refers to 'some'... But which ones are in this 'some' is unclear, because the word was not created to be specific.

So, really by saying 'I hate religion' you're simply just saying something nonsensical and unclear. It doesn't really mean anything. It is literally just nonsense.

sikcool, on 13 February 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

However, it depends on how you would define religion, which is why it is ignorant to hate something that could be and mean so many different things.

Yes. That is absolutely right.
The term "religion" is intentionally non-specific, so to say you hate something non-specific which could mean so many different things demonstrates ignorance of what the term actually means. It automatically means your definition of "religion" is wrong and that you don't have knowledge of what it really means.

As well, it would be ignorant to hate things you also don't even know about or understand. For example, if you don't know what Hinduism is, yet you include it in your definition of "religion", then it would be very ignorant to say you hate it.
As Firerose mentioned, how can you hate something you don't know anything about?

So it is ignorant in two different ways.

sikcool, on 13 February 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

That's how i understood it, at least. Did i get it right?

Mostly.

[deadirf]

My opinion is that Benedict XVI was a conservative, uneducated and religiously blinded man with obviously no real grip of how life really works. Yet sat there on his pile of wealth, controlling other peoples lives with an enormous influence while the world beneath his feet dies of poverty and other disasters. This, only this, makes him a horrible horrible person and all the other things he have been a part of just pushes him to the definition inhumane.
I will probably not care for a new pope sense his job will be to follow in his footsteps.

I am an atheist, but I'm not bothered by religion as long as it doesn't get in the way of science, education and not physically/mentally harm anyone (and so on). To have a pope is not necessary for any good reason.

[CosmicSpore]

deadirf, on 13 February 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

My opinion is that Benedict XVI was a conservative, uneducated and religiously blinded man with obviously no real grip of how life really works. Yet sat there on his pile of wealth, controlling other peoples lives with an enormous influence while the world beneath his feet dies of poverty and other disasters. This, only this, makes him a horrible horrible person

Compared to the rest of the world you're a rather wealthy individual (you have a computer, food, water, and likely many luxuries) and you sit there on your own "pile of wealth", judging people and doing whatever else it is that you do... meanwhile people in the world 'beneath your feet' die of poverty and other things.

Does this, and only this, mean you're a bad person, too? I can't see how you could judge someone so wrecklessly. At the very least you should consider all factors about someone if you are to judge them.

deadirf, on 13 February 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

[...] and all the other things he have been a part of just pushes him to the definition inhumane.

Actually, if you knew anything about what Popes actually do, you would probably think they are more in the 'gray' area... Definitely not "inhumane". Such a statement can not honestly be stated from knowledge.

[Trexmaster]

Fredfredbug4, on 12 February 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:

The Pope wasn't part of the Wermacht, he was far too young. He was a reluctant member of the Hitler Youth (keeping in mind membership was 100% mandatory) and would often skip meetings. The Hitler Youth was really just the Nazi equivilant of the Boyscouts or other organizations countries have to prep their kids to join the army from a very young age. I mean the Boyscouts are just as homophobic as the Nazi's were, they really aren't that much different from the Hitler Youth.

You do realize that was an old joke, right?

[deadirf]

CosmicSpore, on 13 February 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

Compared to the rest of the world you're a rather wealthy individual (you have a computer, food, water, and likely many luxuries) and you sit there on your own "pile of wealth", judging people and doing whatever else it is that you do... meanwhile people in the world 'beneath your feet' die of poverty and other thing

Judging? Ofcourse I do, it's my right as a individual to do so. I still have no influence, no one worships me or takes my opinions to heart by just reading what I think. The majority in this world thinks differently of most things, that doesn't have to stop us from living next to each other and make life work. The "wealth" I have is less than 170$ a month, if you need to know. All that money is for surviving and working. Any rest money is for giving. If I had the type of money the pope had, or have it wouldn't stay in my bank for long. If a simple individual can make any other individuals live easier, it should be given that one would do so.

CosmicSpore, on 13 February 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

Does this, and only this, mean you're a bad person, too?

Hm, yes. I guess so, with your logic. With my salary paying for this computer, water/food and a roof. How evil of me to.. ehm.. not give all my 2 spare dollars to save enough lives to fill a country. And my comments, how awful of me to not think of all the millions of people that blindly agrees with my words. Just because it was oh mighty me who said them.

[Fredfredbug4]

TheEvanCat, on 12 February 2013 - 11:22 PM, said:

Eh, not really. The Boy Scouts don't really go around screaming: "HEIL REAGAN!" Yeah, they're homophobic (and aren't they voting to change that? I thought they were), but they're not like the Hitler Youth for the most part.

ErasmoGnome, on 12 February 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:

As a Boy Scout who is in total support of gay marriage, I take issue with this.

Yes, the upper levels of Boy Scouts are not in support of gay scouts. However, that doesn't immeditately make them like the Hiter Youth. Boy Scouts isn't mandatory, first of all. Second, we don't learn how to fight in the military. The closest thing to that I've ever done is fly a plane for a while - not a fighter plane, mind you. It doesn't prep us to fight at all - I don't know where you got that idea. I have no plans whatsoever to join the military, which I can say of most of the kids in my troop. We learn outdoor skills and knot tying. I've only shot a rifle two or three times in Scouts, and not military rifles. We are not prepped to fight, unless you count exercise.

Actually do your research before convincing yourself that the Boy Scouts are the same as a fascist organization that had mandatory attendance and taught people to fight in war.

While they certainly don't prep children for warfare anymore. Scouting organizations were originally founded to  serve as prepping boys for military recon. The predecessor to the boyscouts actually used the boys in warfare, primarily as scouts (duh) and messengers  both of which can be very dangerous positions. Boy scouts would be prepped for such tasks during the world wars. They never actually saw the warfare, but they were certainly being prepared for it and expected to enlist once of age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting

I suppose comparing them to the Hitler Youth is rather extreme and I'm sorry for that, I was wrong in that respect. However to say that the boyscouts were never oriented around the military is incorrect.

[Catmando]

deadirf, on 13 February 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

My opinion is that Benedict XVI was a conservative, uneducated and religiously blinded man with obviously no real grip of how life really works. Yet sat there on his pile of wealth, controlling other peoples lives with an enormous influence while the world beneath his feet dies of poverty and other disasters. This, only this, makes him a horrible horrible person and all the other things he have been a part of just pushes him to the definition inhumane.

>uneducated
lolwut

I'd love to know what your definition of educated is.

[CosmicSpore]

deadirf, on 13 February 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

Judging? Ofcourse I do, it's my right as a individual to do so. I still have no influence, no one worships me or takes my opinions to heart by just reading what I think.

So your issue is that the Pope has more power and influence than you do? That sounds like jealousy to me.

deadirf, on 13 February 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

The majority in this world thinks differently of most things, that doesn't have to stop us from living next to each other and make life work.

I don't think any of the modern Popes would ever disagree with you there.

deadirf, on 13 February 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

The "wealth" I have is less than 170$ a month, if you need to know. All that money is for surviving and working. Any rest money is for giving. If I had the type of money the pope had, or have it wouldn't stay in my bank for long. If a simple individual can make any other individuals live easier, it should be given that one would do so.

The Popes don't actually get paid. The Vatican is really who possesses the money, and the Popes have some control over this and do give a lot of it to those in need.

deadirf, on 13 February 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

Hm, yes. I guess so, with your logic.

My logic? I was just using your logic, but replacing you as the example.
... My logic is very different and irrelevant in this discussion.

deadirf, on 13 February 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

With my salary paying for this computer, water/food and a roof. How evil of me to.. ehm.. not give all my 2 spare dollars to save enough lives to fill a country.

It's not just about money though, is it? If that were the case then you could check the figures on how much the Popes donate to charities and events and I'm sure you'd be rather satisfied with them.... Instead you called them 'inhumane'.

So, what do you expect the Popes to do more than they are already doing? What is it they can do that you can not which would warrant them being called 'inhumane'? It can't just be about money issues.

deadirf, on 13 February 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

And my comments, how awful of me to not think of all the millions of people that blindly agrees with my words. Just because it was oh mighty me who said them.

Are you implying the people blindly follow the Pope just because it was the Pope whom said them?
I guess you are then not quite aware of the issue of the Anti-Popes and Protestantism, and other such things?

Look, I'm not trying to defend the Popes here. I'm definitely not Catholic, nor do I really like the guys in their gaudy white dresses...
But to call them "inhumane" and whatever else you said? It just seems unreasonable and rather ignorant of what they really do.

Sure they are not the holiest guys in the world (however ironic that might be), but I think if you were aware of their circumstances and such you would be much more willing to think they aren't really so bad.

[ErasmoGnome]

Fredfredbug4, on 13 February 2013 - 09:37 PM, said:

While they certainly don't prep children for warfare anymore. Scouting organizations were originally founded to  serve as prepping boys for military recon. The predecessor to the boyscouts actually used the boys in warfare, primarily as scouts (duh) and messengers  both of which can be very dangerous positions. Boy scouts would be prepped for such tasks during the world wars. They never actually saw the warfare, but they were certainly being prepared for it and expected to enlist once of age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting

I suppose comparing them to the Hitler Youth is rather extreme and I'm sorry for that, I was wrong in that respect. However to say that the boyscouts were never oriented around the military is incorrect.

You'll notice I never said they weren't oriented around the military at one point - all of my diction uses the present tense. However, to say the boy scouts was in the past focused on prepping for the military is incorrect, no matter how much you say it isn't.

According to the wiki, the first ever Boy Scout Handbook, written by the founder, Baden Powell, was:

Wiki said:

He had not simply rewritten his Aids to Scouting, but left out the military aspects and transferred the techniques (mainly survival) to non-military heroes: backwoodsmen, explorers (and later on, sailors and airmen)

The first ever handbook had no military aspects in it. Says something about the organization he was trying to found, doesn't it?

It is true Baden Powell got the idea from scouts in war, but even that is non-militaristic in nature - scouts don't fight by definition, and as I've already said Powell left out the military aspects of scouting from his first handbook. There was some emphasis on prepardness for tough situations like battle, but after all, the Boy Scouts motto is "be prepared". Saying that small aspect of the organization that disappeared not too many years after the start of the organization makes Boy Scouts "oriented around the military" is about as correct as saying school is oriented around lunch (though it may be for some people).

In World War 1, the biggest thing Scouts were used for is selling liberty bonds to assist financial war effort - a deadly effort, sure.

So yes, Boy Scouts does prepare me for war a bit. I can build shelters in the middle of any season, make a fire in rainy conditions with flint and steel, and shoot a bow and rifle a tiny bit better than I would otherwise be able to. All this certainly isn't for the sake of joining the military, however.

[deadirf]

CosmicSpore, on 13 February 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

So your issue is that the Pope has more power and influence than you do? That sounds like jealousy to me.

Sounds like you misunderstood the whole point of my comment. I recommend that you read it again.

CosmicSpore, on 13 February 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

I don't think any of the modern Popes would ever disagree with you there.

There is one pope at a time, do you mean the following chosen ones to lead the religious listeners behind the walls of naivety and nonsense?

CosmicSpore, on 13 February 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

The Popes don't actually get paid. The Vatican is really who possesses the money, and the Popes have some control over this and do give a lot of it to those in need.

No, because a pope doesn't work in the same way. They receive money, not for the work they do but generally for the title.
He is bathing in luxury, does one human need this to live? No. The amounts of charity he gives is nothing compared to what he keeps without needing it.

CosmicSpore, on 13 February 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

My logic? I was just using your logic, but replacing you as the example.
... My logic is very different and irrelevant in this discussion.

Again, read it right.

CosmicSpore, on 13 February 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

Are you implying the people blindly follow the Pope just because it was the Pope whom said them?
I guess you are then not quite aware of the issue of the Anti-Popes and Protestantism, and other such things?

Look, I'm not trying to defend the Popes here. I'm definitely not Catholic, nor do I really like the guys in their gaudy white dresses...
But to call them "inhumane" and whatever else you said? It just seems unreasonable and rather ignorant of what they really do.

Sure they are not the holiest guys in the world (however ironic that might be), but I think if you were aware of their circumstances and such you would be much more willing to think they aren't really so bad.

There we go with the "ignorant" comment. A bit worn out, don't you think?
If you've read the comment properly you would have seen that I did not call the pope inhumane.
What Benedict XVI did for society is not even near what was in his power to do.

I was saying millions of people, the people who listens to him because of his influence. The influence he gets from being in his position.
It's clearly not because of his statements alone.
You seem to have read it like I meant all the people on earth.

Now, what circumstances are you referring to?

[TheEvanCat]

ErasmoGnome, on 13 February 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

-snip-

Apparently, and this is sort of related, the Boy Scouts are our last line of defense after literally everything else.

Although if someone did manage to smack through the military/National Guard/police/rednecks, we'd be screwed already and it wouldn't make much of a difference.

[Catmando]

deadirf, on 13 February 2013 - 11:10 PM, said:

No, because a pope doesn't work in the same way. They receive money, not for the work they do but generally for the title.
He is bathing in luxury, does one human need this to live? No. The amounts of charity he gives is nothing compared to what he keeps without needing it.

What in the world are you talking about? Citation needed, really.