|
Post by LORD BOOTH on Apr 13, 2005 22:55:07 GMT -5
GO ALLAH,GO ALLAH,GO,GO,GO GO ALLAH GO ALLAH GO,GO,GO.
|
|
|
Post by Ken on Apr 14, 2005 13:27:01 GMT -5
We were discussing the Terri Schiavo case on another thread and I thought it was appropriate that the discussion be continued on this thread.
I know and understand as a Catholic that Terri shouldn't have been taken off the feeding tube, that she should have been left to live. However, my practical side rebels against that philosophy. I truly believe that she should have been taken off that tube years ago. The fact that she was allowed to live so long in that state was reprehensible.
Basically, we are faced with a moral dilemma. The Catholic side of me says we should allow her to live. Why? Because if God hasn't taken her yet -- and if he really wants her, he WILL take her -- then we shouldn't send her to him. Maybe God still has a purpose for her. What that purpose is, we may never know. Maybe it was to cause the kind of controversy that her situation did cause, maybe it was simply to make someone else aware of her situation, in order for that person to feel some effect from her situation, in order to influence an event down the line. Who knows?
When I think about it like that, then I think she should just be allowed to go on living.
Then there is the "Ken" side, that says, "Fuck THAT !" This woman died years ago, her body just doesn't know it yet. Let her go! What is the point of going on living?
I truly believe that if your life is truly shit, like total, unadulterated, miserable, constantly unhappy, never a smile to be had, shit, then might you just as well die, instead of enduring the never-ending suffering? Well, Terri certainly qualifies for those requirements.
I have an opinion of course, but in the end, I'm glad I wasn't the one making that choice. I am glad the courts upheld the decision.
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Apr 19, 2005 10:55:47 GMT -5
Greetings pagans, pie-humpers, goat herders, and hethens. I bring you news of the Holy See. There is a new Pope and he is a conservative dude. The third world lost, but the Italians lost their bid to reclaim the post as well. This guy did work with the last Pope for a long time, so hopefully a lot of that rubs off on him. Plus he is a spritely 78 years young: POPE BENEDICT WANTS YOUR SUPPORT "Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany, the church's leading hard-liner, was elected the new pope Tuesday evening in the first conclave of the new millennium. He chose the name Pope Benedict XVI and called himself "a simple, humble worker." Ratzinger, the first German pope since the 11th century, emerged onto the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica, where he waved to a wildly cheering crowd of tens of thousands and gave his first blessing as pope. Other cardinals clad in their crimson robes came out on other balconies to watch him. "Dear brothers and sisters, after the great Pope John Paul II, the cardinals have elected me — a simple, humble worker in the vineyard of the Lord," he said after being introduced by Chilean Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina Estivez. "The fact that the Lord can work and act even with insufficient means consoles me, and above all I entrust myself to your prayers," the new pope said. "I entrust myself to your prayers." If the new pope was paying tribute to the last pontiff of that name, it could be interpreted as a bid to soften his image as the Vatican's doctrinal hard-liner. Benedict XV, who reigned from 1914 to 1922, was a moderate following Pius X, who had implemented a sharp crackdown against doctrinal "modernism." On Monday, Ratzinger, who was the powerful dean of the College of Cardinals, used his homily at the Mass dedicated to electing the next pope to warn the faithful about tendencies that he considered dangers to the faith: sects, ideologies like Marxism, liberalism, atheism, agnosticism and relativism — the ideology that there are no absolute truths. "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism," he said, speaking in Italian. "Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and 'swept along by every wind of teaching,' looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards." Ratzinger served John Paul II since 1981 as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In that position, he has disciplined church dissidents and upheld church policy against attempts by liberals for reforms. He turned 78 on Saturday."
|
|
|
Post by Jonny Ringo on Apr 20, 2005 9:36:28 GMT -5
This is my warp version of the truth and may only be real in the small world as seen through my eyes. The Catholics are like ostriches. Instead of moving forward they go back. Inquisitions, Crusades, greed and corruption, molestation, birth control, divorce, Mary's demigod status, and whole lotta other made up stuff including the position of Pope. Where dos it say anywhere in the Bible to acquire untold wealth and place one man as leader of a country/ faith. Yeah, yeah tradition...as the numbers dwindle as education grows soon even the poor and uneducated of the third world will lose there religion and worship at the alter of capitalism. And in doing so worship Satan by default. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...ha, ha, ha,.....
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Apr 20, 2005 18:39:51 GMT -5
I won't paraphrase, here on some verses you should check out though: John 18:36 Romans 13:1 Matthew 22:21
|
|
|
Post by Rob G on Apr 21, 2005 2:51:51 GMT -5
I will paraphrase:
36Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. –The apostle Paul says this
Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.” -Jesus said this
---------------------------------------- It would seem Jesus's God likes governments and says you should respect them too. This is sound advice all arround as we cant all just go arround doing what we damn please. Though it would seem Jesus was killed by the very government ordained by God. See he was supposed to die. All you jews can let that guilt sleep away now.
Concerning the Pope and such, The catholic church makes an easy target for criticism. Especially since they have been arround forever and you can bring up barbaric things they did from barbaric times. The church of ladderday saints never marched on the holy lands. Scientologists didn't kill people for saying the earth revolves arround the sun. But for all the shit that guys down with the catholic church and all their tom foolery they are an organisation of good. The world is better every day with them in it.
I agree with you though ring, one way or the other we are all damned.
Jesus says a “No one can serve two masters." " You cannot serve both God and Money"
|
|
|
Post by Ringleader1 on Apr 21, 2005 15:39:22 GMT -5
The greatest crimes were commited in the name of "good". Hey were just a slightly smarter monkey. God is my man I talk to him everyday. I pray for my peoples and I don't need a Pope.
|
|
|
Post by abisai on May 2, 2005 11:11:26 GMT -5
People crap on the Papacy. Just to crap on it. Jealousy?
When Muslims claim the right to slaughter innocent people, there is no hierarchy to evoke the higher hand and tell them they are wrong. Islam is a diffused regional based clustering of ideas, without a figurehead. So, Osama bin Laden is on equal theological footing with Muhammed Ali and Kareem Abdul Jabber. The Papacy eliminates that issue entirely. Otherwise, abortion bombers could claim they were doing something Catholic, etc etc etc.
Then there is the child abuse shit. They elect the man that was tasked with kicking ass and being mean to priests if they got out of line. Translation: the ass-kicker is in charge now. Instead of this being a good thing, it is reviled as a backwards step of conservatism. The guy is a Catholic, it is not his task to alter the entire religion. It is his task to lead. And he is experienced in ass-kicking. This is a good thing, not a political thing. I read a lot of BS in Time about the change in leadership and most of it interprested this through a political lense of liberal versus conservative. Women priests, gay marriages, and abortions go against the teaching of the religion, they are not political issues subject to debate within the religion. At the same time, the religion repeatedly tells you to respect these people and their ways apart from your own. So, you can be a lesbian priest who commits abortions all day long, just not within the confines of our religion. People act like this is a bad thing, when in fact it is the entire basis for the government we live under and the world reveres. The Christian founders centered core documents around religious thinking and equal rights was a product of that mindset - not a divergence from it.
|
|
|
Post by abisai on May 15, 2005 10:10:35 GMT -5
It is funny to hear media reports that this Pope is steadfast in not revolting against the entire history of the religion in steps that not even John Paul II would think to change. They pose this as him being conservative instead of the fact of the matter of him being Catholic. Things like, "oh my GOD, he is against GAY MARRIAGE" what a close-minded person. This is the entire religion, but that is the mindset. Note that there is not a Roman Catholic TV channel, political party, or brand of clothing, but there is a need for the people in those indutries to infringe where the need not and know nothing to oppose the workings of a functioning religion - all the while wondering why Islam is broken and people in developed nations are acting immoral and the civilized work has become uncivilized.
|
|
|
Post by Rob G on May 15, 2005 16:16:09 GMT -5
You are so right buck. Like hes some iron fisted defender of the oppressive fundamentals of the church. He has yet to budge. In reality he has done very little so far and understandably so. But this general inactivity is recieved as his unyielding demeanor. Insane.
On a bigger note i kidnof noticed the media inventing this descritpion of the guy. So now he is what the media has described him as for the past few weeks. He dont even get a say in it. The media is just soime big story tellers telling whatever stpry they wanna tell. And we are happy with whatever.
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Sept 28, 2005 22:25:51 GMT -5
www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2187.shtmlAre you saying that this nation’s engagement in the war in Iraq led to the hurricane hitting New Orleans and the Gulf Coast and taking lives? Minister Farrakhan: No, I am speaking of America’s evil. Most of you are very unaware of what your government does in the name of the American people to make nations fall. I am talking about killing millions of people. The American people know nothing about America’s foreign policy. If you travel the earth and see the suffering in the world due to America’s policies. These people do not hate America because we are free; they hate America for the policies that have sucked and siphoned the wealth of nations so that we could be a wealthy people, while in Africa they are living on less than a dollar a day. We must pay for these things. That is why Jesus said, “As a man soweth, the same shall he also reap.” So our government must be careful of what seeds it sows. I am suggesting that the hurricane and the disaster it brought to (the Gulf Coast region) is only the beginning of sorrows. What about pestilence, famine and earthquakes? This is what Jesus foretold. You can run all over the world and find terrorists; go find the God Who is terrorizing this land and arrest Him. That you cannot do, so the best thing for us to do is recognize the power of God has entered this house. You will find unusual rain, snow, wind and earthquakes. Everything you depend on for your sustenance is going to be turned against you. You must pay for what you have done; we all must pay for what we have done and it seems like its pay day. www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2200.shtml"When Hurricane Katrina struck, some said that they busted the levees; I do not know how true that is, but I know that White people have done worse than that." Which is worse, that this mockery of religion binds the fate of citizens to a government that explicitly separates itself from any religion or that this mockery of religion evokes race for any purposes, let alone insanely irrational conspiracy theories? Is he claiming that Allah is trying to kill black people in New Orleans or that white people would rather pay billions to see a few hundred black people dead? I don't mind them thinking that some black guy named Yakub/Jacob invented the white race. I don't mind them thinking there are spaceships/Mother Plane waiting to come to Earth. I don't mind the contradictory and ridiculous statement "Jesus was a Muslim, not a Christian". It does eat me up that our nation treats this group as nearly equivalent to other religions or race groups. They have some great orators. Crazy lunatics, but great orators. Sounds like what drove the KKK for all those years. Isn't it time that the nation addresses something like this group and calls it out for the sham that it is? Wishful thinking? Here is their official website, filled with mad rants: www.noi.org/www.noi.org/muslim_program.htmTim Russert's 1997 interview with Farrakhan: www.finalcall.com/national/mlf-mtp5-13-97.htmlThis is a separatist, race-baiting, politically-minded group. Here is the bizarre mythology created to excuse the group's existance and goals: www.thenationofislam.org/yakubabraham.htmlAnyhow, one nugget still holds true from that Russert 97 interview: Russert: Black Americans voted overwhelmingly, nine out of 10, for Bill Clinton. Farrakhan: Yes. Russert: Is that a good thing? Farrakhan: No, it is not. I feel that our people, who were once Republicans, were very loyal to the Republican Party because of what Abraham Lincoln did. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt came up with the New Deal during the Depression and Black folk found in him a person who was sensitive to the needs of the poor, they left the Republican Party and became Democrats. Now, Black people are taken for granted in the Democratic Party and not even sought after in the Republican Party. But there is a substantial vote that must not be taken for granted by either party, and we hope to break up that as well.
|
|
|
Post by Rob G on Sept 29, 2005 5:20:29 GMT -5
Thats good shit buck,
I was mostly taken back by some side thing that was stated. Farrakan said that it was recently revealed that Libya was not responisble for the bombing in germany which propted Reagons missile strike against Cadafi's home (which killed his family). That would be preatty rugged if true.
For the most part I never found Farrkan that offensive. Hes general for me the equivilent of those christian madmen who show up on TV telling me god is making earthquakes cause i think about naked women. I find him to be devilishly intelligent and most entertaining. And I really dont mind his final conclusion that white and black people should be seperated. Perhaps Farrrakan can take all the black people to Palestine and help them ultimately create a viable state. Then he can personally explain to the Nuclear armed Israelites that there was no Holocaust.
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Oct 4, 2005 23:51:36 GMT -5
No doubt, the guy is a great orator and you have to be very intelligent in order to be able to banter quickly and lucidly, which the guy does often. I suppose the belief system is not any more outrageous than others from a secular perspective, as outlandish as I personally find their claims. Point of interest is the extreme desire to segregate the black race, despite Farrakhan's skin tone betraying his true roots and the religion's founder having a white parent as well. Mostly, I wish it could be formally disputed as a religion, if such a thing were ever possible.
Contrast: Nation of Islam: God took the form of a black guy in the US who revealed himself to only some blacks and spent his life in the pursuit of erecting barriers between peoples, specifically based on race. He gathered a slim following that never branched beyond his immediate target and his views are purchaseable on Amazon.com Christianity: God took the form of a (black/white/who cares) guy in the Middle East who revealed himself to primarily Jews but also others and spend his life in the pursuit of breaking barriers between peoples, specifically on ethnicity. His gathering outlived his life, spread across the lands he walked, altered the course of human history more than anyone who ever lived, and his words are studied and made freely available to anyone with curiosity in learning them.
Next week.... THE MORMONS. j/k
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Sept 16, 2006 23:52:51 GMT -5
I've read on Yahoo that the Pope talked about Islam and people want to attack the Vatican. SO, without further ado, here's the deal for those interested............... Pope Benedict in an academic speech in Germany titled Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections touched on an idea about whether or not our reason leads us to God's reason or if we should subdue our reason for the sake of obedience to God's will. He cites a 14th century work, which has harsh words against Islam. Link to entire article: www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.htmlSection oft quoted in media: "I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue. In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...". The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry." Here's the windbag conclusion of the academic speech: "For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss". The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university." Therein lies the general thesis of the speech: "Not ot act reasonably... is contrary to the nature of God," encouraging debates and taking a nod to the work done at the college. This does not directly address Islam, but does implicate guilt for any who willful usurp the free will of another to convert them to their religion (assumed is the logical conclusion of reasonable thought being Christian modes or at least God's will thereby). The media friendly soundbite "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman" is neither the Pope's own words nor close to his point. His point seems to be the acknowledgement of the role of reason in religion, as opposed to blind faith. This is a good point. I don't know why he cited an ancient work, maybe it's well known in theological circles (there's a bunch of arcane references in his speech so maybe this is the case) and/or maybe in looking at the modern world the guy was looking back in time to see what history held for the theological debates about "holy war." In any event, this is what has played out: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060917/ap_on_re_eu/pope_muslims"Pope stops short of apology to Muslims VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI "sincerely regrets" offending Muslims with his reference to an obscure medieval text that characterizes some of the teachings of Islam's founder as "evil and inhuman," the Vatican said Saturday. But the statement stopped short of the apology demanded by Islamic leaders around the globe, and anger among Muslims remained intense. Palestinians attacked five churches in the West Bank and Gaza over the pope's remarks Tuesday in a speech to university professors in his native Germany... In West Bank attacks on churches, Palestinians used guns, firebombs and lighter fluid, leaving church doors charred and walls scorched by flames and pocked with bullet holes. Nobody was reported injured. Two Catholic churches, an Anglican one and a Greek Orthodox one were hit. A Greek Orthodox church was also attacked in Gaza City... The grand sheik of Cairo's Al-Azhar Mosque, the Sunni Arab world's most powerful institution, condemned the pope's remarks as "reflecting ignorance." Now, this guy's a relatively new Pope and all, but he should have known better then to come close to such a controversy, not even a million miles close to it - he should know any word spoken is just ripe for being used against him. That said, it truly does not seem to me from reading his speech that he's denouncing Islam. I am not apologizing for him, I'd love it if he did! Instead, he cited an old argument about one branch of the Judeo-Chrisitian-Islamic God-Yahweh faith preaching to not spread the word by compulsion and another promoting that very thing. The only controversy is that it was posed in terms of Islam vis a vis Christianity (done via quoting the old text). I doubt any of the engraged throng have any clue what the guy actually said. The irony is abundant. A man denounces spreading religion by violence. Thousands cry foul and commit violence. Draw your own conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Rob G on Sept 18, 2006 16:25:47 GMT -5
The pope says mulums are violent. In response they chant death to the pope.
WHAT.
I think this is great. Its high time we started asking questions like
"Are all religions good religions and equal"
I am hoping this whole thing turns into a holy war and cels of christian maniacs start sproitung up in the muslum world blowing shit in Tehran.
|
|