Trying to create some watered done super-confession that everyone can agree on is wrong and not what most people want. :yep:

Just agree not to step on each other's toes (why I support secularism in public life) but don't empty your faith out to compromise. Like SB says, the divine is not contained by 4 church walls.

What's the big deal? The Catholic Church has some pretty fundamental differences with other Christian groups, so it's not surprising that the Pope doesn't view them as real churches.

In fact, pointing out these differences is probably more useful than saying "You believe what you want, I'll believe something contradictory, but we're both right." which is, frankly, ludicrous.

well explian this massive insult to every other church on the planet disgusting is what i think it is



and the excuse" i was only doing as told" was used numerous time to condone the actions of evil



i think he should get his own house in order before slagging others child abuse and handing out money to buy back condoms in africa who are trying to control the population lvls to stave of famine and HIV whilst his organisation sits on countless billions the poor of the world stave

Well, that's an iteresting point, if you take it to be true (personally I don't).

If there can be only one true religion, then by definition, the vast majority of religions must therefore not be the true one. So however devout their followers are, it is all going to be for nothing. Which is frankly an hilarious notion and also made stronger by the very beliefs which people cling to.

That's why one of my favourite scenes in a movie ever, is the one in Monty Python's The Life of Brian, where John Cleese proclaims: 'He's the true Messiah, and I should know, I've followed a few!' - Never a truer word spoken in jest.

In my opinion, all followers of any religion should be forced to watch him say that line repeatedly, until they get it:rotfl:

However it still presents the world with a problem.

Perhaps the best microcosm of this situation is the Jehovah's Witnesses, whose belief states that 144,000 people are going to go to heaven, which is a bit of a bummer for the rest, considering it was estimated in 2006 that there are 16 million JW's worldwide. Admittedly the JW beliefs change from time to time, owing to that other farce of religion - interpretation of what the scriptures actually mean - but the 144k figure remains static. However, it's interesting to note that in order to get around this slight fly in the ointment, the Governing body of the JW (its 'Vatican' if you will) has chosen to claim that if you aint one of the 144k, you will apparently instead be living in a renewed Earthly paradise.

Phew! that was a close one eh? Seriously though, what it indicates is that interpretation of whatever religion you choose, is best when it is done pragmatically, and I suspect that Staffelfuhrer Benedict could learn a thing or two from that way forward when it comes to going for world peace, instead of rubber stamping partisan isolationist statements such as the one which kicked off this thread.

Even as a someone who is not a supporter of religion, it would be foolish not to acknowledge that many people are. And so, since we are forced to live in a world where this claptrap permeates, it would be wiser for the various religious leaders to take a pragmatic bi-partisan approach, since as preposterous as religion is in concept, being 'the opium of the people' (as Uncle Karl once said), it is useful to control people's behaviour, and clearly does so for both good and bad.

Anyway, here's another thing religion is good for too - jokes:

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?im...&ct=image&cd=3

:D Chock

That boy was 14 (FOURTEEN! That is a 1 (one) followed by a 4 (four) years old when the laws left him no other choice than to join the HJ. I'm sure superheroic kid named Mickey would have taken the opportunity to overthrow the whole regime at that age of 14. Or what?

What's more, read that quote that he was not enthusiastic about it, boycotted courses, and that the seminarians (?) were highly suspicious to the Nazi for not being in line and even working against the Nazis.

If you criticise somebody, okay, there certainly is a lot in Catholicism, and the church, one can disagree with - but do not tell lies about somebody in an effort to let him look bad and denounce him just simply because you wish him to look bad. Stick with the truth, that is good enough to convince people - if your argument is strong enough. If you need to denounce and to discredit and to mud-throw and to tell lies, than you have nothing worthy to say. Ratzinger is an intellectual. Plenty of opportunities for you to tell people for what arguments of your own you do not agree with him on a given issue.

I just read his latest book. I do not agree with much he says, and already on his basis (taking the four gospels literally that is) we are lightyears apart. But accepting that this is the basis on which he begins, I had to admit that from that fundament on he thinks very logical and reasonable. This is what make him predictable and transparent for me, and makes it possible to understand his behavior on the basis of his motives. I do not expect him to lead beyond the ground on which he stands, but see him acting and arguing consequently and in conformity with what he states his fudnament is. In so far he is trustworthy, and reasonable, and that is what I respect. Sure, if I would demand him to ignore his office, act in the interest of other faiths, organizations, and violating the rules of his own organization, I necessarily must become upset about him not meeting my expectations. but he is no arbitrary figure, he is a pope, which is a clearly defined job with clearly defined obligations, policies and demands. So if I am upset about him not leaving all that behind him, my anger is not because he is a problem, but because I have a problem. It is my fault, then.

So, stop telling stupid lies about the man. Feel free to give arguments why you challenge the church's views and policies. The man is not the issue - the office, and what it means, is.

Would you like it if I take the freedom - according to your behavior's logic - to label you as a My Lai-sympathizer - just because you have done nothing to stop it? And I think you maybe have been even older when that massacre happened, than Ratzinger was when he was ordered to join the HJ?! My God, Mickey, how could you let that happen. Have you only been told to do so, and followed somebody's orders not to intervene?

p.s SKYBIRD was he or was he not a member of the hitler youth ?


i never said he gassed 6 million jews did i ?



all i said was that the excuse of we had no choice and i was doing as told has been used many a time to detract away from guilt and responsibility if more people had stood up to her hitler maybe he wouldnt have got to power in the first place



and yes if the average foot soldier had stood up to those in charge maybe that mai li massacre wouldnt have happend


all evil needs to spread is for decent people to do nothing but then again the pope at that time failed to denounce the nazi's that says it all


do you reject the idea that people power can affect political change? the recent spanish elections after the madrid bombings the populas changed the goverment you just cant bury your head in the sand all the time the masses or mob (roman term) can be very powerfull but individuals must be brave to make that happen and it can happen and it has happend in the past


what a very bleak world your picture paints SKYBIRD one man can make a differnce

What I reject here is the attempt to discredit the current office holder in the Vatican by giving the impression that he has been a Nazi: when you said "What do you expect from an ex member of the Hitler youth". That's the message from what you said, and if you meant something different, choose your words more carefully next time.

At age 14 no human being is in a position to support or not support any political unit, regardless of its basis, good or evil.

At age 14, most humans are interested in being liked by their peers, and wondering why their bodies are changing. Politics are no more on their minds than the man in the moon.

Joining the Hitler Youth has no more political signifigance then as joining the Boy Scouts has now. To a 14 year old it was nothing more than bonding and fun with ones peers.

but you dont condem him for saying every other church isnt a real church ( i seem to remember the nationalist party banned all other organisations do you?) i make similarities not accusations


i will discredit him im my eyes he runs a currupt organisation that could do alot more to help the world but doesnt that has major in house problems but preaches to the rest of the world from a false position

Now I understand. Your problem is with the Catholic Church. If Ratzinger wasn't the Pope it would be someone else and you'd have a problem with that person because the man in charge is easier to malign. BTW the Pope has no responsibility to folks like yourself. His only responsibility is to Catholics.

Look at Gunter Grass. He was not only in the Hitler Youth, but also a tanker in the Waffen SS. Yet he is a Hippy Icon in America, and I am told important to the Left in Germany.

Feel free to do so, I even encouraged you to voice your arguments on why you may want disagree with the Catholic church. But that is not my debate here, but yours. I only was about your somewhat thoughtless linking to Ratzinger's "Nazi past". Beside that I was ready to leave it to those initial one or two general comments of mine, that had nothing to do with you. I do not enter a deeper theological or historical debate here - soviel Freundschaft für den Vatikan fühle ich dann doch nicht. As I said earlier, I see and judge the latest policy-chnages and declarations of the Vatican in the light of pragmatism concerning certain present challenges, threats and communal demands - and here is were my interest in catholicism very much ends. And concerning these factors, I pragmatically prefer a far more strong Vatican as a major part of the Western cultural defense network, as long as it is headed by a sharp mind and transparent decision-maker like the current pope. He tries to bring some unreasonable disbalances back into balance, as I see it. In that he has my support - not for theological, but pragmatic reasons. Hell, for me religions needs to be atheistic, while he takes the gospels literally - how much similiarities could he and me probably have on exclusively theological issues, eh...? :lol:

Nothing more to say, so I'm out here.

so alienating every other church in the land is going to bring a stronger catholic church which is already in decline? absolutly not this is a error of monumental preportions

660million is a hell of a lot for a church without discrepecies lol i bet the pope wished he didnt open his mouth

I remember when John Paul II died. I was attending a science ficiton convention in Memphis that weeked as a guest author. If I hadn't been somewhat busy with panels and meeting other writers and fans I would have sobbed the entire weekend. As it was I just cried several times over that Saturday and Sunday.

John Paul II was a good Pope. He reached out to the Jewish people and the Muslims. This guy we have now is a lunatic. Even his brother said he didn't deserve to be Pope. That should tell you something right there.....