The pope is dead.

Pope John Paul II has just passed away. May he rest in peace.

"I'm-a da freakin' pope!"

....

CNN, right now:

"Vatican denies reports that Pope John Paul II has died."

Just a matter of time, though. Maybe I should buy a ticket to Rome...

Yeah, most likely it's either already happened or it'll happen today...

Yea it was on the radio today that he'd "passed away", but I guess he's still clinging tenaciously to his last strands. Shouldn't be much longer though.

According to FNC he's still alive. Of course they get all their information from the Vatican just like everyone else, so who knows.

Imagine what would happen if they suggested removing his feeding tube

I hope he has a living will!

He is at a point of no return nothing can be done to save him now so saying he is dead isnt all that far off although premature , I think "toast" is a far better description.

As for John Paul , He scores points for opossing communism/Fascism and anti semitism or anything ending with a "ism" for that matter ,Scores points for being the first Pontiff to admit the mistakes and dark history of the church and requesting forgiveness.

Loses points for his soft overly permissive aproach to deal with molesting priests, The church lossed all credibility here when it failed to hand in known pediphiles among itself to proper authorities or the very least strip them of their priesthood , Repentense isnt a liscense to rape and sodomize little children just the same as murder , You cant just kill someone and then run to a confession stand bleed your heart out and it all goes away all is forgiven with no punnishment or consiquence.

I hope seriously they elect a black Pope so all that unecessary bling bling can finally serve some purpose. Maybe we could send the pope mobile to west coast customs and have it totally pimped out!

http://puzzles.ngenres.com/screens/48/Image4.jpg

As for John Paul , He scores points for opossing communism/Fascism and anti semitism or anything ending with a "ism" for that matter ,Scores points for being the first Pontiff to admit the mistakes and dark history of the church and requesting forgiveness.

Loses points for his soft overly permissive aproach to deal with molesting priests, The church lossed all credibility here when it failed to hand in known pediphiles among itself to proper authorities or the very least strip them of their priesthood , Repentense isnt a liscense to rape and sodomize little children just the same as murder , You cant just kill someone and then run to a confession stand bleed your heart out and it all goes away all is forgiven with no punnishment or consiquence.


Amazing, I agree with an ASM post.

Ironic!

...

Right?

I guess...

I agree too.

Monk: Welcome to the Benedictine Monk Variety Hour! We've got a great show for you today, with our special guest, the pope!

Pope: HAAAAIIIII-YAAAH!

*Pope smashes a block of ice with his head*

Crowd: JP! JP! JP!

In a bit of semi-related news, Frank Purdue, who we all know from the Purdue chicken commercials of years past, died today. He's the same age as the Pope, 84.

It's kinda like how Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both died the exact same day, and how that day happened to be July 4, and it happened to be in 1826, the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and the formal birth of our nation.

But not quite as cool.

Monk: Welcome to the Benedictine Monk Variety Hour! We've got a great show for you today, with our special guest, the pope!

Pope: HAAAAIIIII-YAAAH!

*Pope smashes a block of ice with his head*

Crowd: JP! JP! JP!

Duke: *socks the pope in the shoulder and steals his hat* Hey John-Paul, where's George Ringo? *snicker*
Pope: I get so sick of that joke...

It's kinda like how Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both died the exact same day, and how that day happened to be July 4, and it happened to be in 1826, the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and the formal birth of our nation.

Yeah, that's definitely one of the weirder cooincidences out there... they weren't the same age though. :)

Yeah, that's definitely one of the weirder cooincidences out there... they weren't the same age though. :)

Regardless of the age difference, the coincidence is eerie. In addition, James Monroe died on the 55th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration, but that's not as cool 'cause he didn't help found it and 55 isn't as awesome a number as 50.

If I wanted to be picky, though, I could say how July 4 was only the day chosen to represent it, it could as well have been July 3 (or maybe several others too), etc, but yeah... it is weird. :)

If I wanted to be picky, though, I could say how July 4 was only the day chosen to represent it, it could as well have been July 3 (or maybe several others too), etc, but yeah... it is weird. :)

Yeah, and we all know you're <i>never</i> picky :rolleyes:

While I am aware of that technicality, I tend to accept July 4th as the date of the signing even though it more than likely wasn't.

Who cares if it isn't? That's just the way it is and so you'll just have to deal with it!

Yup. That's just the date on which it has been accepted as being.

Something happened on July 4th... but I don't think it was the final signing. But yeah, it doesn't really matter.

It may come at no surprise but the pope is really dead now! :link:

Lets give the traditional TC 21 BB gun Salute , So we can give him a proper send off into heaven dodging bullets.

The Pope wouldn't need to dodge bullets he could stop them Matrix style!

*as the camera pans up an image of the Pope is super-imposed against the sky while the song "Don't You Forget About Me" plays in the background*

Great Rumbler: :chuckle:


It's sad when anyone dies, but I just can't feel THAT bad for him, being almost 85 as he was... I mean he spent much of his in a magnificent palace in Rome... and he was virtually worshipped as a demi-god by hundreds of millions of people. We should all be so lucky.

Fox News' top headline right now: Remembering Pope John Paul II's United States Visits. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Because the rest of the world doesn't matter!

Even when the top story isn't related to America, Fox News finds a way to make it so.

Well, as Americans, his visits to America do have more importance to us than to other nations, and it is an American news network doing the report...

He was the first really good Pope in basically forever. Rest in peace.

It's sad when anyone dies, but I just can't feel THAT bad for him, being almost 85 as he was... I mean he spent much of his in a magnificent palace in Rome... and he was virtually worshipped as a demi-god by hundreds of millions of people. We should all be so lucky.

Not to mention his steady decline of health these last few years. I honestly thought he'd have died years ago. Not saying that to b mean, his health has been failing him. His last few months, he could barely muster the strength to stand or speak.

Nonetheless, now he has passed. What I hope doesn't happen is that Terry Schiavo's death overshadows the Popes. You may not think it possible, but do you remember when Mother Teresa died? She died about a week after Princess Diana, and that spoiled English brat got all the news coverage (not to mention they're still playing "secret tapes" shows. I mean she's dead, get over it!), while Teresa, who spent her entire life in the slums helping the less fortunate got next to no recognition. Truly sad, but such is life.

I don't think that will happen. In that case it was celebrity vs. celebrity, one rich, powerful and always in the news, doing important things like appearing at anti-landmine rallies, one old, physically unattractive, and who only did silly things like actually physically help people with no thought of her own gain.

Terri Schaivo has been news lately, but when Diana died, she was news for two decades and was an icon for people who worship princesses and stuff. The Schaivo story is new, and will pass. The Pope has nothing to worry about as far as competition goes.

You're probably right, but I sometimes wonder about the collective sanity of the American populace.

Yeah, I doubt Schiavo will be covered more than the Pope. Schiavo was only a celebrity because of her condition. The Pope was a celebrity before that. Princess Diana and Mother Teresa were both celebrities before their deaths, but since Princess Di was younger and more attractive, people cared more about her death. I still see her on the cover of tabloids and magazines. People have been saying that she was murdered. Frankly, I don't care, she's dead and burried, let it go. Mother Teresa is rarely mentioned now, which is a shame. Her legacy should be the one being remembered to this day.

Yeah, I doubt Schiavo will be covered more than the Pope. Schiavo was only a celebrity because of her condition. The Pope was a celebrity before that. Princess Diana and Mother Teresa were both celebrities before their deaths, but since Princess Di was younger and more attractive, people cared more about her death. I still see her on the cover of tabloids and magazines. People have been saying that she was murdered. Frankly, I don't care, she's dead and burried, let it go. Mother Teresa is rarely mentioned now, which is a shame. Her legacy should be the one being remembered to this day.

My point exactly. Diana was a figurehead in England and nothing more. she was a pretty face who lived in luxury and (I'll admit) died tragically. But the idea that she got more news coverage (and still is) than Mother Teresa, who spent her life helping the less fortunate, boils my blood.

However, she wasn't overlooked completely. I believe they made her a saint after her death.

Yeah, I think they did.

*as the camera pans up an image of the Pope is super-imposed against the sky while the song "Don't You Forget About Me" plays in the background*


Haha, you've done that to just about everyone.

And I still want to make a video of that with Yamauchi's mug.

Haha, you've done that to just about everyone.

I know. :D

What, you think anti-landmine rallies are pointless? What, are you FOR landmines?!

I'm so sick of you people who are all like "I love landmines!"!

:D

Remember, the pope did a lot of things. He got up EVERY day to wear the pope hat!

Guy: Come on pope, wake up!

Pope: Just give me 5 more minutes...

Guy: Poooope

Pope: Alright... geez...

Guy: Don't forget your hat.

Pope: Eehhh, it's a stupid hat...

News person: And now the Pope's coffin is being carried to where he will be laid to rest.

*Benny Hill theme begins playing in the background*

Archbishop of Canterbury: Uh oh!

*everyone runs around*


They should really do that. I would be totally awesome. I'd watch it.

I don't think anti-landmine rallies are silly or pointless, but I don't think Diana did any real anti-landmine work. She merely showed up at the rallies, donated a token amount of money, and was declared a heroine. And by my standards of heroism, what she did for the anti-landmine cause didn't even begin to compare to what Mother Teresa did for the destitute in India. That is a gap of light-years. Mother Teresa was hands-on, she actually did the work herself. Diana showed up and donated a pittance. And of course, she got all the coverage when she died in the noble pursuit of evading journalists.

To note, Mother Teresa is not a saint, though there is a significant debate within the Catholic Church about her eligibility for sainthood. I, and many others, believe she is eligible due to spending her entire life helping her fellow man in ways most others could not dream of, but some would deny her because she never performed what is officially termed a 'miracle', one of those inexplicable acts of God.

Just wait till she appears in somebody's bowl of cheerios.

News person: And now the Pope's coffin is being carried to where he will be laid to rest.

*Benny Hill theme begins playing in the background*

Archbishop of Canterbury: Uh oh!

*everyone runs around*

I swear, picturing that made me laugh out loud for like five minutes :D

Those wacky Brits.

I don't think anti-landmine rallies are silly or pointless, but I don't think Diana did any real anti-landmine work. She merely showed up at the rallies, donated a token amount of money, and was declared a heroine. And by my standards of heroism, what she did for the anti-landmine cause didn't even begin to compare to what Mother Teresa did for the destitute in India. That is a gap of light-years. Mother Teresa was hands-on, she actually did the work herself. Diana showed up and donated a pittance. And of course, she got all the coverage when she died in the noble pursuit of evading journalists.

To note, Mother Teresa is not a saint, though there is a significant debate within the Catholic Church about her eligibility for sainthood. I, and many others, believe she is eligible due to spending her entire life helping her fellow man in ways most others could not dream of, but some would deny her because she never performed what is officially termed a 'miracle', one of those inexplicable acts of God.

Yah I agree that Mother Teresa did probaily go the full lenght , But did you personally know Diana and how truly strongly she opposed land mines?It is said she became outraged after seeing pictures of african children severely maimed by them and went out to meet all of them and get pictures.

While I admit the anti land mine campaign has alot more people to thank down below , But without Diana and her popularity and strong advocation it probaily wouldnt have gone as far as it did , Her death only made the "anti land mine" campaign get even more publicity infact its still tied with her.

The point is lands mines can sit there for generations long after the war is over and the threat is gone,Britain still has land mines planted on its soil long after the Nazis have ceased to exists and the war is over. It just costs to to much or is to dangerous to disarm aged erroiding land mines.

They became and remain a threat to the local inhabaitance, 3rd world countries hurt the most because their internal conflicts were not lead by responsible "compassionate individuals" just planting bombs everywhere not marking it or giving a shit about the children who liver nearby.

I predict the new Pope will be called Gregory XVII.

Or Yakra XIII, it's a tossup.

Or Semnat MCMXLVII.

...

What? It could be!

Yah I agree that Mother Teresa did probaily go the full lenght , But did you personally know Diana and how truly strongly she opposed land mines?It is said she became outraged after seeing pictures of african children severely maimed by them and went out to meet all of them and get pictures.

While I admit the anti land mine campaign has alot more people to thank down below , But without Diana and her popularity and strong advocation it probaily wouldnt have gone as far as it did , Her death only made the "anti land mine" campaign get even more publicity infact its still tied with her.

The point is lands mines can sit there for generations long after the war is over and the threat is gone,Britain still has land mines planted on its soil long after the Nazis have ceased to exists and the war is over. It just costs to to much or is to dangerous to disarm aged erroiding land mines.

They became and remain a threat to the local inhabaitance, 3rd world countries hurt the most because their internal conflicts were not lead by responsible "compassionate individuals" just planting bombs everywhere not marking it or giving a shit about the children who liver nearby.
Okay, here's where I make my distinction. Diana was 'strongly opposed' to land mines (as opposed to those who are really in favor of them, I guess). Mother Teresa would be the type to actually go out there sweeping for mines and disabling them. Diana brought more attention to the problem of mines, but she didn't actually do anything herself to solve the problem. Mother Teresa didn't appear at press conferences in half-million dollar outfits, flash a smile and preach how much she was opposed to poverty, she dedicated her entire life to eradicating it and she did it with her own two hands.

Celebrities who endorse causes just piss me off, because it seems so shallow and insincere, and I get the distinct feeling they appear for these causes for the sake of exposing themselves. I was not moved by Diana's pleas, nor could I give a shit about Bono speaking out about world hunger or Susan Sarandon appealing to me to donate my money to eradicate poverty. They can all go fuck themselves.

If you get more money to support a cause that needs it, then it's a good thing to do...

If you get more money to support a cause that needs it, then it's a good thing to do...
Yeah, but it doesn't make you a hero. There's no comparison to that and to actually solving the problem with your own sweat and tears.

If those people don't have the money to be able to do anything, though, they aren't of much use... you need both.

Mother Teresa lived in the same conditions as the people she helped.

Money's not the only way to solve problems. You've got hands, use them. (That's not directed at anyone specifically just in general)

Mother Teresa lived in the same conditions as the people she helped.

Not entirely correct , While I conquere she was not a media graber and was probaily a very sincere person. She did take monitary donations and she did have her church and high favor with the now late Pope John Paul II to back her infact at one point she was the most famous catholic in the world besides the Pope himself, Probaily also got asistance from the indian goverment as well.

I know of a Indian social worker who even became a minister of public affairs at one point who immigrated and retired out of india to canada he has a docterate and is highly educated, But not super rich he is just middle class man living in a modest a regualar average sized home , He used his own money and finances to open schools for the poor homeless children in india , He taught there as well running it almost full time with his wife untill he retired and passed it over to his Son who was a qualified teacher,He even had to provide food and lunch for many of them, Aparently he even met mother Terresa once, Though he is a atheist but still admits admiration for Mahandis Ghandi. Nobody here knows who he is except those he meets in person and the people and children who he fought to bring reforms to save from poverty and even child slavery are the only ones who know him Docter Abu Sadiq.

I understand the skepticism of celebs and rich pricks doing sopposed charity work , I agree view each one with a grain of salt , If britney spears or Lindsey Lohan went all preachy I wouldnt buy it.

I am more disturbed by Billionaire CEO who are willing to blow millions getting such useless shit like golden toilets or blowing millions for just one single extravagent private dinner party for all their buddies , Milliondollaire designer suites, 50 luxury classic sports cars such Dodge vipers,Hummers ect.. When its time to help the poor and be generious its peanut brittle.

Its like a mega oil company drilling in a 3rd world country in africa, They make 80-300 billion dollars revenue every year from that one country , The best charity they can give is a measily 24 million dollars! The average price of the company board members one of many cottages , homes and Estates.

50% of doesnt even have running water or acess to school and medicine , 24 million dollars I have seen that exact amount spent on just one single city hall.

I dont think Lady Diana ever called herself a hero, Personally in my opinion I saw more sincerity in her efforts then her ex husbands or childrens put ons, Its the public that saintified her when she died they did a incredible mass gushing and high exalting just like the Pope right now so maybe it was blown out of perportions. I dont think these celebrities desserve higher credit then those who make the same efforts with so much less to work with, I agree there.

I think your wrong about Bono , Maybe I am a U2 fan afterall , But knowing the lyrics of all their albums over the years I think he is plan out sincere, He didnt have to do shit but he does his music for the longtest time refferences all those things he talks about like the isreali/Palestinian conflict for example in the last album in one tract , Weither he does this or not he is gonna sell albums.

Bono being a Irish men growing up with the bull shit amosity and conflict there , Waisnt raised a spoilt little bitch. He was a muscian unlike the bubble gum pop preprocessed artificial shit Pop is now , There was a time it was the rocker who spoke out and spread awareness and his music was the anti status quo.

Just becuase you have money or become famous doesnt mean your not allowed to care anymore , Its doesnt automatically make you a hypocrite or a put on.

In other news, a new pope has been selected. A German man who will now be going by the name Pope Benedict the XVI is now the man right below God in the Catholic faith.

They should have picked an American as the next pope.

Joy, they managed to find one of the few people even MORE conservative than John Paul II...

Well, there's certainly nothing wrong with that.

Yes, there is.

As I understand, he doesn't like America very much.

But there isn't anything wrong with being conservative.

American catholics are slightly more liberal than he is overall, though... the majority are in favor of contraception, at least, I'm sure (think I've seen polls saying that).

The church cannot, by it's very definition, be progressive. Well, I suppose it can to an extent, but this isn't a democracy we're talking about here and the Bible is most certainly not a living document to be interpreted as we se fit. Just saying is all.

The new Pope looks like Palpatine!

http://www.vaticanphoto.li/images/Card.%20Joseph%20Ratzinger-2.jpg

...

As I understand, he doesn't like America very much.

But there isn't anything wrong with being conservative.

Personally I wouldnt care what the church did with itself and its members, But stay out of our politics and our goverment. History shows time and time again that religion and politics dont mix, Even science and politics dont even work together that well either.

I dont have a problem with light moderate conservatism , Nothing wrong with being willing to hear both sides of the story and work out a deal. Then just a iron fisted closed shut up dont ask questions or else will punnish you mentality.

Your political parties really suck , I guess I can say the same in my countries case as well. But yours have a knife to each others throats and truth is only matter who you listen too.

What happend in canada and why we suddenly turned away from conservatism back in early 90's had alot to do with the failed dishonnored adminstration of Brian Malroney , He was the guy that totaly went tax crazy and lied and broke his word on everything he said that he would and wouldnt do when he was elected,The free trade agreement he made then was a very unpopular decision as well.

When I went shoping in new york a few days ago I was astonished that you guys dont have to pay sales tax on quite alot of things,Even with your gas as high as it is you still pay less then we do on a good day.

The new pope was once a Nazi. Nothing wrong with being that conservative, is there? :)

But yeah, as ASM is suggesting, we need better bridge builders between parties. There are too many people blindly taking sides. Everyone's ideas should be heard and accepted. George Washington, in particular, was against political parties. He felt they formed alliances, and we don't need opposing alliances in our country. We should all be one big alliance. Anyway, I'm drifting away from the point. There are too many people who blindly vote straight ticket for whatever party they're sold their souls to, completely ignorant of the issues at hand. What's sad is that a lot of them try to defend their guy or their party even though they don't know what's going on, then they criticize people for seeing things differently, regardless of whether or not the person they criticize knows a few things about the issues.

Yeah... around here (meaning in Alabama), there's too much crap being spewed from people's mouths about politics when they don't even know what they're talking about. Admittingly, I'm no political expert myself, but even I can smell bullshit when it's clearly presented.

I actually think that having political parties is helpful. People are going to disagree, it's healthier for orderly debate if that disagreement was amplified in two main directions, as opposed to fifty seperate, equally-strong directions. Having too many differing points of view makes compromise incredibly difficult.

If you think this Pope's level of conservatism is fine, then you're fine with no contraception and a subordinate role for women in society (remember, women cannot become priests. This pope almost certainly won't change that.)?

http://www.vaticanphoto.li/images/Card.%20Joseph%20Ratzinger-2.jpg
"Are you trying to threaten me, Master Jedi?"

The Hole thing with Contraceptions with the catholic church , Is really about trying to prevent women from ever gaining equality and equal footing with men or even just being treated as a human beings and a distinct individual , To the Church a womens purpose ends after child birth and house duty.

The Church wants women tied down with endless child birth and child rearing it keeps them in line and in the home were they belong, Thats happend to my grand mother, You should see they kind of huge sized families they had on average in the 50's and 60's in staunch catholic households before the pill was invented it was because of church pressure, The idea also for this was to increase church members seriously! It was strategy to try to gain majority population in many countries, The Popes influeintial hold on a country is alot stronger the higher the percentage of catholics in it.

The new Pope wasn't a Nazi, he was drafted into the Hitler Youth (just like all the other teenagers in Germany at that time) and got out of it by studying to be a priest, then he was drafted into the army and deserted.

ASM, remember that to Catholics, there is no greater duty than to augment the numbers and the glory of the Church. It's not because you see the situation of Catholic women as problematic that this is so in the eyes of the Church; why should women have lowly secular ambitions when they can instead do God's bidding and give Him more children to spread His word? I'm not saying this is right, just remember to consider the religious perspective in the argument. The clergy doesn't go around saying "oh yeah we'll keep them down, those damn women", you know. If you're a believer, their perspective certainly makes sense.

Also, Mulroney shmulroney. This time around the Liberals f'ed up with the whole sponsorship thing, and the Conservatives have a chance to take the gov't once again. In Canada we don't elect governments based on opinions; we just elect one party, wait till it does something so stupid we can't vote it in again, then elect the other, rinse and repeat.

I get church logic, No contraceptives lots of babys and then thanks to no protective sex they all die off painfully.

In actually they church can say whatever they want but its exactly what I was saying , Thats why their also agiast planed parenthood because that would also give time for women as well to do other things.

If we had just gone through the bubonic plague maybe, But right now overpopulation is a plague its causing shortages in everything such as Land and food if you live in packed in countries!

The reason for the amazon forrest destruction is an out of control birth rate of south america thanks to yours truly the catholic church!

The same group that once said the world was flat ,Soap and Jews all heathens caused the black death.

The church is anti women , Its alot softer then say during the witch hunt or before secularization but still silently anti women.

Why total celebacy amongst the priesthood? The apostles had wives! The bible never comands absolute celebacy it was never a strict requirement.

Now you get overly sexual repressed priest taking it out on little kids or picking up prostitutes.

No man, I don't think you get it. From a religious standpoint the Church isn't anti-women, in fact they're so pro-women that they give them the greatest duty of bringing new Catholics into the world. The Church has always opposed secular ambition both in the case of men AND women - for someone who seeks to attain Heaven, wealth is superfluous, and should therefore remain in the hands of the Church who will use it for the glory of God (this is why our churches always have way better interior decoration than Protestant churches). The idea that succeeding in life is a good thing, ala the American Dream, is a very Protestant idea that has only recently spread to the Catholic world, in the last 50 years or so, and has always accompanied the secularization of society at large. It's possible that the Church has changed its viewpoint to a certain degree to try and reconcile the secularized ex-Catholics, which I think is a stupid idea - and apparently so does the new Pope - because you're either Catholic or you're not. The modern ideals of life are so far removed from Jesus's original teachings that it's simply idiotic to try and reconcile them like so many people want to - either you're willing to live your life in poverty and prayer, as Jesus did, until you finally die and go to Heaven, or you just fuck off from the Church, period (as I did btw).

Now I realize you couldn't just pick up and leave 50 years ago in the middle of Duplessis's reign, but the fact is that with the arrival of the new secular way of life you *can* pick and choose, so there's no reason for reform within the Church.

As for the Bible not commanding celibacy, that is irrelevant. Once again the idea that the Bible's is God's word is a Protestant tenet and has nothing to do with Catholicism. In Catholicism, the Bible is simply a collection of divinely inspired literature which is left to be interpreted by the Church. If the Church interprets the Bible in a way that makes them think priests ought to remain celibate, then priests will remain celibate.

Also blaming the destruction of the Amazon Forest on the Catholic Church is pretty weak. How about we start with the lumber industry and take it from there?

The Catholic church is in favor of keeping things as they always were. Change is no in their lexicon. Women? Stay at home... women priests is a crazy idea to people like that. Same with allowing contraception. These are things that modern society realizes are important things to have. And that's not even going anywhere current civil rights issues like homosexuality...

No, they are not in favor of women in a modern sense. Only in a out-of-date one that denigrates and insults them.

I may not agree with some of the things that the Catholic church does, but I do agree that changing church doctorine to suit the times is generally not a good thing.

So it's better to keep it patently unfair and cruel?

I didn't say that it was without exception, such as if they're doing something that goes against what the Bible says then they should change. I don't think their church works that way though.

What The Bible says and how people have interpreted it over the centuries are not one and the same.

The earth is the center of the universe, right? Eh?

Of course if it is, and if you suggest otherwise, we will kill you for being an abomination. :rolleyes:

The earth is the center of the universe, right? Eh?

I don't remember that part in the Bible...

Neither do I, yet that's what the church held to until the 20th century. Just saying is all!

The Bible is easily interpreted to defend almost anything, so you can't "use the bible" as your law even if you want to. You can use your idea of what you think the Bible means -- but this is a very different thing from what the actual, contradictory, Bible says. :)

That's you interpreting it to be contradictory as well. You're doing the same thing you accuse others of.

It's impossible to interpret it any other way, if you look at everything that's in the thing...

Tell that to the innumerable sects of Christianity. If you think that you have figured out the true meaning of The Bible then your ego is even greater than I imagined. Most of the stuff in The Bible is allegory, so of course it's going to sound contradictory if you read it literally. Don't be silly.

It's written by people, many people, so of course it's contradictory... it'd be impossible for it to be any other way... and I don't quite get what you're talking about... saying 'the Bible has no one true meaning (in the way that lots of christian sects take it to)' doesn't mean that I know the true meaning of the Bible... :confused:

Of course the Bible does have some basic things it can agree on, like wanting people to follow God... oh wait, in the Old Testament that only applies to Jews. They didn't exactly prostelitize (sp?)... :)

Again, what you're saying is that you, mighty ABF, understand The Bible totally and completely and that you have empirically proven that your mighty interpretation of it is absolute and that the book is contradictory.

Amazing.

Everyone, I suggest we start following ABF from now on. Truly, he has the answers.


Seriously though, you have every right to interpret the Bible however you want, but to suggest that your interpretation is correct and that everyone else's is wrong is utterly ridiculous. Even for you.

What in the world are you talking about, OB1? Really, you're making no sense... and oh yeah, just saying "you're stupid" isn't an answer.

You said:

You can use your idea of what you think the Bible means -- but this is a very different thing from what the actual, contradictory, Bible says.

It's impossible to interpret it any other way,

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY??

I'm not doing some deep interpretation of the Bible, OB1... :) I couldn't, I'm not exactly the most versed person on the Bible. It's not like in the church I went to we had to memorize the thing... we just read a few bits.

:erm:

You just stated that you know what the Bible says, and that it is definitely contradictory. You stated it as a fact.

You are reading far, far more into that statement than I ever meant... something most people would have understood, but not you, either because of your desperate need to find things in my posts to argue with or your problems understanding what people mean that you won't acknowledge.

The last thing I want to do is argue about the Bible. But your posts were very clear. You stated, as a fact, that the Bible is contradictory, going so far as to suggest that it's impossible for it not to be. Even though you haven't read it!

I've read enough to know it contradicts itsself... it does within a couple pages of the start, I'm pretty sure...

:erm:

The great Bible scholar, ABF.

Never said I was. :)

Actually, making that definitive statement suggested that you do think you are.

:rolleyes:

You know I'm right.

I know you aren't able to read and interpret what other people say, that's what I know...

:rolleyes:

The Bible's a book. Written over a period of thousands of years by many authors.

I think the conclusions you can draw from that fact are pretty obvious... that's basically what I meant.

It's written by people, many people, so of course it's contradictory... it'd be impossible for it to be any other way.

You're absolutely right. Since it's written by many people over a long period of time it would almost HAVE to be contradictory in at least a few places.

...

Unless, of course, you subscribed to the theory of Divine Inspiration.

Never said I was.

You certainly acted like you were.

I've read enough to know it contradicts itsself... it does within a couple pages of the start, I'm pretty sure...

We talked about that before. The supposed "twin creations stories". One's a recap of the other, there's no real contradiction in that part.

We talked about that before. The supposed "twin creations stories". One's a recap of the other, there's no real contradiction in that part.

Or at least, that's one way to interpret it. :)

Unless, of course, you subscribed to the theory of Divine Inspiration.

Which is problematic, given all the things the Bible supports... like, say, slavery...

Which is problematic, given all the things the Bible supports... like, say, slavery...

That happened in the Old Testament, most of the doctorine used now is New Testament Law.

Also, you have to remember that what happened with the Old Testament is that it actually brought forth slavery laws that were less severe than what was the standard at the time, and if it had stated that slavery was wrong and should be abolished, literally no one would have paid any attention to it.

The thing is if Church teachings and tenets are loosely based on bible interpretation what makes church teachings carved in stone that they cant be change to conform with generally held commonsense? The church couldnt hold on to their middle aged flat earth teachings today could they?Its old anti semitic views that thankfully John Paul II terminated.

If they said our beliefs are based on such a such a passage in the bible, Then you could say fine their is a some basis as to why they keep these beliefs hey the "divinely" inspired texts back it up.But if just vague "tradition" why do you have to follow silly old araciac tradition?Just for the sake of it?

If the Catholic church didnt try to grab or influience politics so much , I wouldnt be botherd what it decided to do, It would be its own private business but they just cant keep it that way trying to "desecularise" europe is the aim goal thats why they picked Ratzi.

One thing I really hate is how full of shit they are, Ratzi saying thanks to the cardinals for electing a very "simple man" ,Humble people dont boast about being humble or simple and feel the need to tell everyone, You could say I try to be Humble I try to be simple but anything else is being presumptious.