Pope makes eejits of the Church again.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What the church has done in the past, and what they are still doing wrong does not make me think there is any less value in his stance on homosexual acts. I suppose you want to make the accused (the catholic church) look like an uncredible witness to what is right and what is wrong. Im afraid in then the church isnt looking good at the moment. But ...even if a witness is discredited, it doesnt mean that everything they say is a lie.

I don't believe the Pope is lying. I think he believes everything he says. That doesn't make him right, though.

 

[Wandered Off]

So if they dont force people to be catholics then if people decide to be catholics surely they must understand that by becoming a member you have to ...you know...adhere to the policies.

What if they vote in large numbers to impose those same policies on people who aren't members? That's not far off from forcing people to act like Catholics, no?

 

[Darkwater]

ok,ancient Celtic Tradition dictates that you lose stature if,say,you lose *condition* or capacity.

These rules,which have also kept females back for thousands of years so much so that female emancipation is only 100 years old in my *fledgling* society,should be trashed as in put in the dustbin of society for all time.

The popes message is destructive & negative,singles out a particular area of society for special treatment.It is judgemental & damning,takes no account of the feelings of society.

The smartest person,male female or whatever,should have the job,not some daft old tube....what the Rocats did with pjpII was also a disgrace,following an old man in his dotage,wheeled out for ....

So the Rocats hijack Yule,then they try to ruin it by homophobic messages at yuletime.

 

[Heneni]

Ignore it?

The Pope trying to get a billion people to unfocus themselves from the environment and focus on homosexuality will have a major harmful effect on me personally, my descendents, and the world as a whole, to say nothing of the homosexual people who will bear the brunt of it. This supposedly internal Catholic matter has real, direct consequences for me; why shouldn't I be able to speak out on the matter?

How did you come to this conclusion. (underlined part?). Please tell me what you percieve the consequences for yourself and your decendants will be.

I see one discrimination in this issue; where's the other?

If christians are shoved to the side...cough...happens here as well...because they dont feel that homosexual acts are right..then that is also discrimination. And why are homosexuals , who say they are discriminated against, in the closet? If they are in the closet,there has hardly been time to discriminate. What they are fearing, is the possibility of discrimination. And im wondering...shouldnt 'being true to yourself' mean...come out of the closet and face the music? Rather than asking the boogie man to go away before you will be real? But that is something for another thread. What im trying to say here, is that christians should not expect the world to dissapear before they are going to have to face the music for not adhering morally to their suggestions.

No, he hasn't been punished at all. People have voiced disagreement, that's it. And not because the Pope is "trying to protect mankind from moral decay", but because he's trying to get good people to stop doing good and start doing bad.

See...not agreeing here on what is morally right and what is morally wrong. Your identifying the actions of the pope as bad, im not identifying him as anything. I have however identified that what he is saying about homosexual acts rings a bell with my moral code. Its not ringing yours. And therein lies the dilemma. Will there ever be a solution, as long as the bells are not ringing together?

Except leave each person to follow the dictates of their own moral code without interference, which the Catholic Church seems to be unwilling to do

Um...if there is interference they can join another club? Might be hard, but if its that much of an interference....

Heneni

 

[Heneni]

What if they vote in large numbers to impose those same policies on people who aren't members? That's not far off from forcing people to act like Catholics, no?

A club is a club. You pay the membership fee you hopefully wanna be there. The club opperates within the scope of their members.

But can you give me an example jerry?

 

[Heneni]

ok,ancient Celtic Tradition dictates that you lose stature if,say,you lose *condition* or capacity.

These rules,which have also kept females back for thousands of years so much so that female emancipation is only 100 years old in my *fledgling* society,should be trashed as in put in the dustbin of society for all time.

The popes message is destructive & negative,singles out a particular area of society for special treatment.It is judgemental & damning,takes no account of the feelings of society.

The smartest person,male female or whatever,should have the job,not some daft old tube....what the Rocats did with pjpII was also a disgrace,following an old man in his dotage,wheeled out for ....

So the Rocats hijack Yule,then they try to ruin it by homophobic messages at yuletime.

Yes yes...ok...but lets not forget that jesus and the money mongers and the hypocrites didnt exactly see eye to eye either. And so...he wasnt about to get 'with it' just so that he could be liked.

Heneni

 

[Darkwater]

How times have changed for the Rocats?

Many of our modern Christmas traditions began hundreds of years before Christ was born. Some of these traditions date back more than 4000 years. The addition of Christ to the celebration of the winter solstice did not occur until 300 years after Christ died and as late as 1800, some devout Christian sects, like the Puritans, forbade their members from celebrating Christmas because it was considered a pagan holiday. So what is the history behind these traditions?
The Christmas tree is derived from several solstice traditions. The Romans decked their halls with garlands of laurel and placed candles in live trees to decorate for the celebration of Saturnalia. In Scandinavia, they hung apples from evergreen trees at the winder solstice to remind themselves that spring and summer will come again. The evergreen tree was the special plant of their sun god, Baldor.
The practice of exchanging gifts at a winter celebration is also pre-Christian and is from the Roman Saturnalia. They would exchange good-luck gifts called Stenae (lucky fruits). They also would have a big feast just like we do today.
Mistletoe is from an ancient Druid custom at the winter solstice. Mistletoe was considered a divine plant and it symbolized love and peace. The tradition of kissing under the mistletoe is Druid in origin.
The Scandinavian solstice traditions had a lot of influences on our celebration besides the hanging of ornaments on evergreen trees. Their ancient festival was called Yuletide and celebrated the return of the sun. One of their traditions was the Yule log. The log was the center of the trunk of a tree that was dragged to a large fireplace where it was supposed to burn for twelve days. From this comes the twelve days of Christmas.
Even the date of Christmas, December 25, was borrowed from another religion. At the time Christmas was created in AD 320, Mithraism was very popular. The early Christian church had gotten tired of their futile efforts to stop people celebrating the solstice and the birthday of Mithras, the Persian sun god. Mithras’ birthday was December 25. So the pope at the time decided to make Jesus’ official birthday coincide with Mithras’ birthday. No one knows what time of year Jesus was actually born but there is evidence to suggest that it was in midsummer.
So, if you are celebrating any of the western traditions of Christmas this year, remember that you are actually enjoying the rituals and activities of several ancient religions whose traditions have been borrowed by the Christians over the years for the celebration of the birth of Christ.
Happy Holidays!

 

[Heneni]

How times have changed for the Rocats?

Many of our modern Christmas traditions began hundreds of years before Christ was born. Some of these traditions date back more than 4000 years. The addition of Christ to the celebration of the winter solstice did not occur until 300 years after Christ died and as late as 1800, some devout Christian sects, like the Puritans, forbade their members from celebrating Christmas because it was considered a pagan holiday. So what is the history behind these traditions?
The Christmas tree is derived from several solstice traditions. The Romans decked their halls with garlands of laurel and placed candles in live trees to decorate for the celebration of Saturnalia. In Scandinavia, they hung apples from evergreen trees at the winder solstice to remind themselves that spring and summer will come again. The evergreen tree was the special plant of their sun god, Baldor.
The practice of exchanging gifts at a winter celebration is also pre-Christian and is from the Roman Saturnalia. They would exchange good-luck gifts called Stenae (lucky fruits). They also would have a big feast just like we do today.
Mistletoe is from an ancient Druid custom at the winter solstice. Mistletoe was considered a divine plant and it symbolized love and peace. The tradition of kissing under the mistletoe is Druid in origin.
The Scandinavian solstice traditions had a lot of influences on our celebration besides the hanging of ornaments on evergreen trees. Their ancient festival was called Yuletide and celebrated the return of the sun. One of their traditions was the Yule log. The log was the center of the trunk of a tree that was dragged to a large fireplace where it was supposed to burn for twelve days. From this comes the twelve days of Christmas.
Even the date of Christmas, December 25, was borrowed from another religion. At the time Christmas was created in AD 320, Mithraism was very popular. The early Christian church had gotten tired of their futile efforts to stop people celebrating the solstice and the birthday of Mithras, the Persian sun god. Mithras’ birthday was December 25. So the pope at the time decided to make Jesus’ official birthday coincide with Mithras’ birthday. No one knows what time of year Jesus was actually born but there is evidence to suggest that it was in midsummer.
So, if you are celebrating any of the western traditions of Christmas this year, remember that you are actually enjoying the rituals and activities of several ancient religions whose traditions have been borrowed by the Christians over the years for the celebration of the birth of Christ.
Happy Holidays!

:rainbow1: I did not see the pope, homosexuality, or catholic in this post...and your point is?

Happy holidays to you too!

 

[Darkwater]

Well,the all encompassing *new* religion did paliate the solstace & Mithraeic,as well as a host of other *religion's* by incorporating the dec 25th ritual feast.

I am sure that *minority groups* celebrate winter solstace as they have always done,just we have a pope unneccessarily badgering poofs,freaks & weirdo's.

Who/what next?

*holds up misteltoe*

 

[Heneni]

Well,the all encompassing *new* religion did paliate the solstace & Mithraeic,as well as a host of other *religion's* by incorporating the dec 25th ritual feast.

I am sure that *minority groups* celebrate winter solstace as they have always done,just we have a pope unneccessarily badgering poofs,freaks & weirdo's.

Who/what next?

And when, in your opinion would there be a time for a neccessary badgering of poofs, freaks and weirdo's?

And....:rainbow1: not to add injury to insult...but whos the freaks and weirdo's?

 

[Darkwater]

Well many homosexuals are in the armed forces,so freaks & weirdo's would fall into the category of *those unfit for service*,say....maybe a paunchant for baudy,lewd yet positive poetry.

*Alternative night* at disco's is strictly for poofs freaks n' weirdo's.....kinda anything goes,expect the unexpected,edgey.....good for a giggle with nurses,student's n' stuff.my cousin met his now wife of about 20 years at one me & him went too.

Eh,freaks & weirdo's fall into many categories,the Pope himself qualifies on many counts.He would be great at an alternative style christmas night out with his great costume once the pole gets removed ahem.

Just people getting by.

Eh,if any young guy feels he has been *groomed* & seduced,especially by someone in power then the perp should be taken to task & jailed.

Rapists & paedo's are pro-non scripto & should be badgered accordingly,no matter what denomination,colour,creed,station,sexuality.

Age of consent being primae facie.

You don't have to associate with your average poof,freak & weirdo,most are harmless & very good fun.

 

[Magic Man]

Overall morality? What a concept! HE HE....your more likely to find the man in the moon than a common overal moral code. Even two people cant agree on what love is.

That's exactly the point. You were talking about protecting morality, but what you meant was your morality, not an overall morality, because that doesn't exist.

Just....a question.....the pope has never forced you to do anything he says...has he? How then is he interfering with your moral code, hindering you from doing what you would otherwise believe is crucial to being true to yourself?

Well, there are billions of Christians, and hundreds of millions of Catholics, and this reinforces the belief in a large number of them that it's ok to discriminate against homosexuals. So, indirectly he has helped force some people to not do something - gay marriage - that they should be able to do.

 

[Heneni]

That's exactly the point. You were talking about protecting morality, but what you meant was your morality, not an overall morality, because that doesn't exist.



Well, there are billions of Christians, and hundreds of millions of Catholics, and this reinforces the belief in a large number of them that it's ok to discriminate against homosexuals. So, indirectly he has helped force some people to not do something - gay marriage - that they should be able to do.

Do you always run around in cirlces like this? You were the one who said you were offended because the pope/me didnt defend an overall morality, and now your saying it doesnt exist..so adding one and one together, you are offended that the pope does not defend this overall morality which you now claim does not exist. So what are you offended by? You are offended because somebody does not defend that which does not exist.

You are not seriously thinking the pope is discriminating against homosexuals are you. He is against the homosexual act. If you feel that you deserve and it is your right to engage in the homosexual act then you might feel like there is some discrimination here.....

If the adulterer felt that they deserve to engage in adultery and they feel it their right to be unfaithful, then they too might feel discriminated against.

But sinning....according to the bible, isnt our right. Neither is chopping down trees.

Heneni

 

[Magic Man]

Do you always run around in cirlces like this? You were the one who said you were offended because the pope/me didnt defend an overall morality, and now your saying it doesnt exist..so adding one and one together, you are offended that the pope does not defend this overall morality which you now claim does not exist. So what are you offended by? You are offended because somebody does not defend that which does not exist.

You said that he was defending an overall morality. I explained that he was defending your morality, not an overall morality. I'm offended because he's promoting a morality that only leads to harm for others according to my morality.

You are not seriously thinking the pope is discriminating against homosexuals are you. He is against the homosexual act. If you feel that you deserve and it is your right to engage in the homosexual act then you might feel like there is some discrimination here.....

You're pulling the old "hate the sin, love the sinner" thing. Of course homosexuals deserve to engage in behavior that is natural to them and doesn't harm anyone. Everyone is entitled to that. So, the pope isn't discriminating against homosexuals, just homosexuals who act like homosexuals? Does that really make sense to you?

If the adulterer felt that they deserve to engage in adultery and they feel it their right to be unfaithful, then they too might feel discriminated against.

If by "adulterer" you mean "someone, who is in a committed relationship with another person where there is an understanding that neither will engage in sexual behavior with anyone else, and breaks that trust by doing just that behavior", then, yes, that's true. However, we can both agree that there is something wrong with that behavior, just like we can agree that breaking a promise is wrong. We don't agree that homosexual behavior is inherently wrong, so your example doesn't work as a good analogy.

But sinning....according to the bible, isnt our right. Neither is chopping down trees.

Heneni

I emboldened and underlined the key phrase there. And you think that we shouldn't cut down trees?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are not seriously thinking the pope is discriminating against homosexuals are you. He is against the homosexual act.

You don't seriously think we're discriminating against the Pope, do you? We're against what he's saying and doing, not him as a person.

If you feel that you deserve and it is your right to engage in the homosexual act then you might feel like there is some discrimination here.....

I don't think that "deserve" enters into it, but I do think that it's anyone's right to engage in "the homosexual act", as you put it, subject to the normal limitations we put on sexuality (e.g. consensual, not in public, etc.).

If the adulterer felt that they deserve to engage in adultery and they feel it their right to be unfaithful, then they too might feel discriminated against.

But sinning....according to the bible, isnt our right. Neither is chopping down trees.

According to the Bible, judging of others isn't our right either.

 

[Heneni]

That's the point. I'm offended because he wants to protect his and your morality, not an overall morality. Try to remember that morality is different for everyone.

There you Go...lets read it again...yes you do say...im offended because he wants to protect his and your morality , not an overall morality.

 

[Darkwater]

I am with you Hen on the chopping down of tree's,this is feudal system concerning *property* which should be clarified in law double quick.

History is filled with what are now termed *gay* people,as far as I know from as far back as Gaythelos,the Gay Warrior(the Gael/Gaul).

The guy who cracked the enigma code,saving millions(?) of lives was homosexual & tragically hounded for this.This brilliant mind *wasted*.

Some feudal/serfdom dope in a frock is just perpetuating ignorance,like Paul Pot from Cambodia.Like Saddam whose dogmatic followers are now daring to throw shoes at unpopular leaders.

Like any power mad nutcase & tyrant(Bush,Rumsfeld & the other wee guy).Tony Blair being another I would Indict for fleecing the People.

Nothing at all to do with tree's which is a seperate matter.

 

[Heneni]

According to the Bible, judging of others isn't our right either.

The issue here is the act of homosexuality. If you think about it, there is no need to judge the act, because to judge it would mean your still trying to figure out if it is right or wrong, and then come up with a verdict. The homosexual act is not up for judgement, it is not allowed, therefore no amount of wondering should be necessary.

There has always been people who believe that if you dont support what they do that you judge them. But in fact its the other way around. By not condoning what they do, they judge us as judgemental. A christian doesnt judge the act...its already been judged by the JUDGE. What we have to do...is adhere to the verdict. If its not allowed, its not allowed. If somebody practises the act of homosexuality, there is no need to wonder what to think of it..the verdict is out. If others percieve that as judging the homosexual community.....then they are assuming that we still have the luxury to decide whats right and whats not. Also if the practising homosexuals....are judging the christians who dont support their ways...then what would be the verdict? God has already declared us righteous...if they judge us to be anything else, their verdict is wrong...even though they judged. In the end...if you live by gods verdict of matters right and wrong...no acussation of any sorts can stick. Not if brought before THE JUDGE.


Heneni

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The issue here is the act of homosexuality. If you think about it, there is no need to judge the act, because to judge it would mean your still trying to figure out if it is right or wrong, and then come up with a verdict. The homosexual act is not up for judgement, it is not allowed, therefore no amount of wondering should be necessary.

You realized that you just passed judgement on homosexuality, don't you? :sarcastic

There has always been people who believe that if you dont support what they do that you judge them. But in fact its the other way around. By not condoning what they do, they judge us as judgemental. A christian doesnt judge the act...its already been judged by the JUDGE. What we have to do...is adhere to the verdict. If its not allowed, its not allowed. If somebody practises the act of homosexuality, there is no need to wonder what to think of it..the verdict is out. If others percieve that as judging the homosexual community.....then they are assuming that we still have the luxury to decide whats right and whats not. Also if the practising homosexuals....are judging the christians who dont support their ways...then what would be the verdict? God has already declared us righteous...if they judge us to be anything else, their verdict is wrong...even though they judged. In the end...if you live by gods verdict of matters right and wrong...no acussation of any sorts can stick. Not if brought before THE JUDGE.

Maybe it would be better if they left the pronouncements of verdicts up to God and accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters... I think I read that somewhere once.

 

[Magic Man]

There you Go...lets read it again...yes you do say...im offended because he wants to protect his and your morality , not an overall morality.

Yes, that's what I say. I'm offended because he's trying to protect your morality, not an overall morality (as you claim it to be). I'm making the distinction between your morality and an absolute morality. You made it sound like he was protecting an overall morality, when he was only protecting yours.