News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Pope Benedict XVI 'is to resign'

Started by Martinus, February 11, 2013, 06:03:35 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
User actions

Syt

#165
February 12, 2013, 07:37:29 AM
Die Zeit had an interesting commentary. While previous Popes basically fuse their old selves with their role as Pope, so that Pope and persn become indistunguishable, B16 always retained his duality as Ratzinger and Pope.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.
—Stephen Jay Gould

Proud owner of 42 Zoupa Points.

Caliga

#166
February 12, 2013, 07:44:18 AM
Saw an interview with the pope's bro who said Benny doesn't even plan on writing anymore following his retirement.  So lazy... are we sure he's actually a German? :hmm:
0 Ed Anger Disapproval Points

Viking

#167
February 12, 2013, 07:45:24 AM
Quote from: Caliga on February 12, 2013, 07:44:18 AM
Saw an interview with the pope's bro who said Benny doesn't even plan on writing anymore following his retirement.  So lazy... are we sure he's actually a German? :hmm:

Bavarians are the latins of germany, like the Danes are the latins of scandinavia.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Caliga

#168
February 12, 2013, 07:50:06 AM
 :lol:
0 Ed Anger Disapproval Points

fhdz

#169
February 12, 2013, 10:54:55 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 02:41:21 AM
No they are not. I said I was unable to trust somebody who was unable to meet condition X. It does not follow from that that meeting condition X means that I trust them.

Who gives a shit? That wasn't what I was arguing.

But please, continue to congratulate yourself while I continue to think you're a fucking dope. Then we'll both be happy! :)
and the horse you rode in on

merithyn

#170
February 12, 2013, 11:45:38 AM
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 01:58:29 PM

What you don't get, is that once you are Catholic you are always a Catholic, even if lapsed. We've learned the catechism and made most of the sacraments when we were kids. We've grown with and inside the Church.

Most still have some threads left with the Catholic Church, even when steadfast in disagreement around it. Most Catholics become lasped because they feel either kicked out of the Church, out of touch, or without understanding inside the Church because of their secularism.

:yes:

It's as much a person's culture as it is their religion. Though I left the church 15 years ago, I still say my rosary when I'm overly stressed, and still find myself saying certain prayers under certain circumstances.
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away...

Caliga

#171
February 12, 2013, 12:03:25 PM
My mother does that kind of stuff too, though she's a lapsed Methodist.
0 Ed Anger Disapproval Points

Viking

#172
February 12, 2013, 12:24:32 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 10:54:55 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 02:41:21 AM
No they are not. I said I was unable to trust somebody who was unable to meet condition X. It does not follow from that that meeting condition X means that I trust them.

Who gives a shit? That wasn't what I was arguing.

But please, continue to congratulate yourself while I continue to think you're a fucking dope. Then we'll both be happy! :)

You lay into a strawman about me and when I dismantle and rephrase for the less gifted to understand you complain. Sigh...
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

dps

#173
February 12, 2013, 01:14:54 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 12:24:32 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 10:54:55 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 02:41:21 AM
No they are not. I said I was unable to trust somebody who was unable to meet condition X. It does not follow from that that meeting condition X means that I trust them.

Who gives a shit? That wasn't what I was arguing.

But please, continue to congratulate yourself while I continue to think you're a fucking dope. Then we'll both be happy! :)

You lay into a strawman about me and when I dismantle and rephrase for the less gifted to understand you complain. Sigh...

If someone doesn't clear a bar to trust, it means that you'll automatically distrust them.  Clearing the bar doesn't automatically mean that you'll trust them.  It's what you and fahdiz both said.  Why are you arguing that point with him?  He's not disagreeing with you there.  His disagreement with you is that he thinks the particular bar you set is silly.  If you want to argue, agrue that it's not silly insead of arguing the semantics of "bar to trust"--which you and he don't disagree on.

Viking

#174
February 12, 2013, 01:24:18 PM
Quote from: dps on February 12, 2013, 01:14:54 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 12:24:32 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 10:54:55 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 02:41:21 AM
No they are not. I said I was unable to trust somebody who was unable to meet condition X. It does not follow from that that meeting condition X means that I trust them.

Who gives a shit? That wasn't what I was arguing.

But please, continue to congratulate yourself while I continue to think you're a fucking dope. Then we'll both be happy! :)

You lay into a strawman about me and when I dismantle and rephrase for the less gifted to understand you complain. Sigh...

If someone doesn't clear a bar to trust, it means that you'll automatically distrust them.  Clearing the bar doesn't automatically mean that you'll trust them.  It's what you and fahdiz both said.  Why are you arguing that point with him?  He's not disagreeing with you there.  His disagreement with you is that he thinks the particular bar you set is silly.  If you want to argue, agrue that it's not silly insead of arguing the semantics of "bar to trust"--which you and he don't disagree on.

It wasn't a bar to trust. Fahdiz brought that up, that was the misrepresentation. It was a bar to mistrust. An inability to satisfy that condition means mistrust, and ability to satisfy it doesn't result in trust. He turns the conditions I set upside down and then says they are stupid. When I point this out he says he doesn't care and thats not what he was talking about anyways; which is what I was telling him.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Barrister

#175
February 12, 2013, 01:27:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 01:24:18 PM
Quote from: dps on February 12, 2013, 01:14:54 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 12:24:32 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 10:54:55 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 02:41:21 AM
No they are not. I said I was unable to trust somebody who was unable to meet condition X. It does not follow from that that meeting condition X means that I trust them.

Who gives a shit? That wasn't what I was arguing.

But please, continue to congratulate yourself while I continue to think you're a fucking dope. Then we'll both be happy! :)

You lay into a strawman about me and when I dismantle and rephrase for the less gifted to understand you complain. Sigh...

If someone doesn't clear a bar to trust, it means that you'll automatically distrust them.  Clearing the bar doesn't automatically mean that you'll trust them.  It's what you and fahdiz both said.  Why are you arguing that point with him?  He's not disagreeing with you there.  His disagreement with you is that he thinks the particular bar you set is silly.  If you want to argue, agrue that it's not silly insead of arguing the semantics of "bar to trust"--which you and he don't disagree on.

It wasn't a bar to trust. Fahdiz brought that up, that was the misrepresentation. It was a bar to mistrust. An inability to satisfy that condition means mistrust, and ability to satisfy it doesn't result in trust. He turns the conditions I set upside down and then says they are stupid. When I point this out he says he doesn't care and thats not what he was talking about anyways; which is what I was telling him.

Good grief.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Viking

#176
February 12, 2013, 01:29:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2013, 01:27:06 PM

Good grief.

I didn't make a shitstorm out of this, Fahdiz did.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Barrister

#177
February 12, 2013, 01:31:18 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 01:29:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2013, 01:27:06 PM

Good grief.

I didn't make a shitstorm out of this, Fahdiz did.

Disagree.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

alfred russel

#178
February 12, 2013, 01:34:29 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 12, 2013, 07:44:18 AM
Saw an interview with the pope's bro who said Benny doesn't even plan on writing anymore following his retirement.  So lazy... are we sure he's actually a German? :hmm:

It is as though he lacks the protestant work ethic.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

derspiess

#179
February 12, 2013, 01:35:36 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2013, 02:50:40 AM
Apparently non-photo-shop picture of St. Peter's Basilica, last night:



:ph34r: :pope:

I guess God voted already.
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
User actions