QuoteThe Pope is to resign at the end of this month in an entirely unexpected development, reports from the Vatican say.
The 85-year-old became Pope Benedict XVI in April 2005 following the death of Pope John Paul II.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21411304
WTF. :huh:
Don't they usually die on duty? Maybe he has some kind of health problem that will make him incapable of serving?
QuoteThe Vatican has confirmed that Pope Benedict will resign on February 28, according to Reuters.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 11, 2013, 06:05:48 AM
Don't they usually die on duty? Maybe he has some kind of health problem that will make him incapable of serving?
Yes, and seeing how they are, allegedly, picked by the Holy Ghost himself/herself/itself, resignation is not a normal thing either. It makes the Holy Ghost wrong.
According to Austrian news, the only other pope to ever abdicate was Coelestin I in 1294.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 11, 2013, 06:05:48 AM
Don't they usually die on duty? Maybe he has some kind of health problem that will make him incapable of serving?
Less capable than JP2 was in the end?
Quote from: Syt on February 11, 2013, 06:07:56 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 11, 2013, 06:05:48 AM
Don't they usually die on duty? Maybe he has some kind of health problem that will make him incapable of serving?
Less capable than JP2 was in the end?
I thought the part where the T. Rex ran amok in San Diego was the best part of the movie.
Seems his declaration cites old age and his dwindling mental capacity in a fast changing world as reasons for the abdication.
When has that ever kept back a Pope?
http://en.radiovaticana.va/articolo.asp?c=663815
QuoteDear Brothers,
I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today's world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.
From the Vatican, 10 February 2013
BENEDICTUS PP XVI
Wow. This is indeed freaky.
Interesting that Lizzie 2 says she won't abdicate since her position is god given but the freaking pope is more than willing to do so....
If it's good enough for the Queen of the Calvinists it is good enough for the Bishop of the Romans. However much I have the unreason of religion the world is better for a non-senile pope.
Quote from: Tyr on February 11, 2013, 06:34:48 AM
Wow. This is indeed freaky.
Interesting that Lizzie 2 says she won't abdicate since her position is god given but the freaking pope is more than willing to do so....
Catholicism is not true religion, film at 23.
Makes me wonder if there's some other reason he's resigning that isn't being shared. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on February 11, 2013, 06:37:25 AM
Makes me wonder if there's some other reason he's resigning that isn't being shared. :hmm:
He wants to go out with a bang.
Quote from: Tyr on February 11, 2013, 06:34:48 AM
Wow. This is indeed freaky.
Interesting that Lizzie 2 says she won't abdicate since her position is god given but the freaking pope is more than willing to do so....
I think Charles may be going now "Moooom, see? The Dutch Queen abdicated. The Pope abdicated. Come on, mooom."
Quote from: Caliga on February 11, 2013, 06:37:25 AM
Makes me wonder if there's some other reason he's resigning that isn't being shared. :hmm:
Well, whenever a politician or a CEO resigns for "health reasons", it's usually because he defrauded a lot of cash, or was caught fucking a young boy.
That being said, for a Pope, that's pretty much the job description. :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2013, 06:57:13 AM
Quote from: Tyr on February 11, 2013, 06:34:48 AM
Wow. This is indeed freaky.
Interesting that Lizzie 2 says she won't abdicate since her position is god given but the freaking pope is more than willing to do so....
I think Charles may be going now "Moooom, see? The Dutch Queen abdicated. The Pope abdicated. Come on, mooom."
Something like this I would imagine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvJu94afDd0
Perhaps he did it to pick is successor, or to retire and avoid the stress?
btw, a papal camillus...
Pope Celestine V
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Celestine_V
QuoteHe issued two other decrees: one confirmed an earlier decree of Pope Gregory X that ordered the shutting of the cardinals in a conclave to elect a new pope; the second declared the right of any pope to abdicate the papacy, a right that he himself exercised at the end of five months and eight days at Naples on 13 December 1294.
something tells me that this guy may not have wanted the job to begin with
Quote from: Viking on February 11, 2013, 07:08:31 AM
something tells me that this guy may not have wanted the job to begin with
Not unlike Ratzinger.
Oh, picking pope 266 is going to be slug fest.
Also, last pope!
He was old and frail when he became Pope so good for him.
(https://www.titanic-magazin.de/uploads/pics/Papstruecktritt.jpg)
Copied from the Bible! Ratzinger loses title of Pope!
I think it's time for a schwartz pope.
Quote from: Syt on February 11, 2013, 06:07:04 AM
According to Austrian news, the only other pope to ever abdicate was Coelestin I in 1294.
Nope. 1415, Council of Constance, Gregory XII.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 11, 2013, 07:25:14 AM
Oh, picking pope 266 is going to be slug fest.
Also, last pope!
Oh how I hope he does go with the name Peter :D
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 07:58:31 AM
Nope. 1415, Council of Constance, Gregory XII.
Wasn't he deposed (depoped?) by the council, along with the other two?
Quote from: Caliga on February 11, 2013, 06:37:25 AM
Makes me wonder if there's some other reason he's resigning that isn't being shared. :hmm:
I suppose being the centralized collector for every official document and file of pedophile sex abuse cases since 2001 in the CDF wears at you after a while.
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 07:58:31 AM
Quote from: Syt on February 11, 2013, 06:07:04 AM
According to Austrian news, the only other pope to ever abdicate was Coelestin I in 1294.
Nope. 1415, Council of Constance, Gregory XII.
I don't count the schism. -_-
Quote from: Maladict on February 11, 2013, 08:08:51 AM
(depoped?)
Sounds like a laundry term. I DUNNO LADY LOOKS LIKE THIS BLOUSE WILL HAVE TO BE DEPOPED
Quote from: Maladict on February 11, 2013, 08:08:51 AM
Wasn't he deposed (depoped?) by the council, along with the other two?
He agreed to the proposition to resign, because it was the only way to end the Schism.
John XXIII didn't agree, and pretended to be the "legitimate" Pope until he submitted to Martinus V in 1418.
Quote from: Syt on February 11, 2013, 08:13:24 AM
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 07:58:31 AM
Quote from: Syt on February 11, 2013, 06:07:04 AM
According to Austrian news, the only other pope to ever abdicate was Coelestin I in 1294.
Nope. 1415, Council of Constance, Gregory XII.
I don't count the schism. -_-
Well, I and other Catholics do. :pope:
Well, it seems that the express permission for Popes to retire was added to Canonical Law in 1983. The decision must be voluntary, reasons need not be given, and no one needs to accept the resignation.
It was rumored that Ratzinger, before getting popified, was looking forward to retirement and spend more time writing. I'm guessing he saw the Beatrix business and thought, "Not a bad idea . . . "
There is a joke already - how can you tell John Paul II was a true Pole?
A true Pole would never voluntarily resign from a position of power.
I guess this is more fun when you know Polish politicians. :huh:
Or Spanish ones. While Brits and Germans resign after covering traffic violations or plagiarizing their thesis, our entire government stands firm despite ledgers that show pretty much everyone taking money from bribes, for decades. It would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.
Meanwhile, it takes considerable pressure for Austrian politicians to resign. Even after a criminal conviction for corruption it may take weeks till they step down, and months for new elections. :P
The stuff that caused Wulff to resign from the German presidency would hardly raise eyebrows here.
What? They get convicted. What kind of inept rulers do you have over there Syt? Our politicians are at least smart enough to define very short statutes of limitations, so they can laugh all the way to the bank if anything ever comes out.
Sure, they might lose a couple elections. But since there are only two parties and closed lists, the pendulum will soon swing their way.
Guess this changes the answer to the sarcastic reply "is the pope catholic"
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 09:07:54 AM
What? They get convicted. What kind of inept rulers do you have over there Syt? Our politicians are at least smart enough to define very short statutes of limitations, so they can laugh all the way to the bank if anything ever comes out.
Sure, they might lose a couple elections. But since there are only two parties and closed lists, the pendulum will soon swing their way.
Corruption and lobbyism is a big part of Austrian politics. That said, the country is still surprisingly well run. The last few years saw a silly amount of corruption trials in politics and business, plus a huge inquiry on four or five different allegations of corruptions of the past few governments. However, with things becoming more visible, mindsets slowly start to change.
But as point of reference: a few years ago they changed the anti-corruption laws again. It used to be that public servants and elected officials couldn't accept invitations/goodies from anyone. Now they can accept them again, if the benefit is not tied to a specific expectation. You can invite someone for dinner to improve relations, but you can't invite them in order to get a certain decision out of them. This will be changed back again soon.
Still, Austria is a small country, 8 million people, so most people who have some influence know each other personally, which makes the lines between corruption and being friends blurry.
I would imagine maybe he has a diagnosis of early Alzheimer's or something that will deteriorate his mental faculties. I think for JP2, he had this strong feeling that he had a lifetime responsibility as ordained by god, and if he deteriorated it was god's will. But Benedict has been a very activist Pope in trying to push his brand of Catholicism, especially in regards to activities designed to increase the number of Catholics and even poach Christians from other Churches like the Orthos. Benedict probably recognizes with modern medicine, he could live 10 more years with deteriorating mental capacities and that doesn't sync with his vision of the more activist leadership the church needs.
He probably hopes a Cardinal as conservative as he will get selected to keep the fight on against the modernizers / liberals in the Church, but a lot of people felt then Cardinal Ratzinger, a known anti-reformer, was picked primarily as a compromise. He was old enough that they'd get to pick a new Pope soon, at which point more of the conservative Cardinals would have died off and the more liberal ones could select a more modernizing pontiff.
Will be interesting to see how it works out.
Surely the thing to do would be for him to retire from active-work and remain a figurehead pope with a vice-pope doing all the work?
This abdication business really is a major change. Odd for a conservative.
My impression is that basically no one really likes him. Who wants to still be working in a job with massive responsibility at 85 in a situation like that? Maybe he just wants to retire.
There must be some amusing illuminati crap about this up on Faceplant now. :tinfoil:
I can't wait for the conclave to elect an African Pope. Polish right wingers would really have a tough one with this one (a PiS MP called Obama's election "the downfall of the white man civilization" for example). :D
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2013, 10:00:30 AM
My impression is that basically no one really likes him. Who wants to still be working in a job with massive responsibility at 85 in a situation like that? Maybe he just wants to retire.
He probably just wanted to spend a few years being the Pope, so he has something cool to put on his CV.
An African or Latin American Pope would definitely make a lot of sense, ironically the African Catholics are probably one of the last great bastions of truly conservative Catholicism, and Latin America and Africa are definitely the biggest growth markets and most enthusiastic followers.
I'm hearing talk about the Cardinal Ouellet of Quebec and previous "primate of Canada" / Archbishop of Quebec as an early frontrunner, though.
My wife's cousin is apparently excited about being able to camp outside again during the conclave or whatever it's called :huh:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 11, 2013, 10:24:36 AM
An African or Latin American Pope would definitely make a lot of sense, ironically the African Catholics are probably one of the last great bastions of truly conservative Catholicism, and Latin America and Africa are definitely the biggest growth markets and most enthusiastic followers.
I'm hearing talk about the Cardinal Ouellet of Quebec and previous "primate of Canada" / Archbishop of Quebec as an early frontrunner, though.
The catholic church in parts of latin america is getting its ass kicked by evangelicals.
They should elect a black Pope and then move the Holy See to Africa, when Vatican is sequestred by the Italian government. :swiss:
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2013, 10:35:48 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 11, 2013, 10:24:36 AM
An African or Latin American Pope would definitely make a lot of sense, ironically the African Catholics are probably one of the last great bastions of truly conservative Catholicism, and Latin America and Africa are definitely the biggest growth markets and most enthusiastic followers.
I'm hearing talk about the Cardinal Ouellet of Quebec and previous "primate of Canada" / Archbishop of Quebec as an early frontrunner, though.
The catholic church in parts of latin america is getting its ass kicked by evangelicals.
I'd say that's fairly isolated for the moment.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2013, 10:35:48 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 11, 2013, 10:24:36 AM
An African or Latin American Pope would definitely make a lot of sense, ironically the African Catholics are probably one of the last great bastions of truly conservative Catholicism, and Latin America and Africa are definitely the biggest growth markets and most enthusiastic followers.
I'm hearing talk about the Cardinal Ouellet of Quebec and previous "primate of Canada" / Archbishop of Quebec as an early frontrunner, though.
The catholic church in parts of latin america is getting its ass kicked by evangelicals.
And Quebec is perhaps the most secular and non-religious part of north america.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 11, 2013, 10:24:36 AM
An African or Latin American Pope would definitely make a lot of sense, ironically the African Catholics are probably one of the last great bastions of truly conservative Catholicism, and Latin America and Africa are definitely the biggest growth markets and most enthusiastic followers.
I'm hearing talk about the Cardinal Ouellet of Quebec and previous "primate of Canada" / Archbishop of Quebec as an early frontrunner, though.
Oh well, at least the catholic church accepts evolution as the best explanation for biological diversity and admits that it's man in quebec is a primate.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 11, 2013, 10:24:36 AM
I'm hearing talk about the Cardinal Ouellet of Quebec and previous "primate of Canada" / Archbishop of Quebec as an early frontrunner, though.
You know the saying, who enters a conclave as Pope usually gets out as Cardinal.
But who knows. "Poor Canada", as John Paul II is told to have said when he was told the third secret of Fatima. So maybe the election of Ouellet as last Pope was foretold by the prophecies :P
The Pope should definitely come from outside of Europe. Fuck Europe. I'm so sick of you people. :)
Cal is right.
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 11:00:23 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 11, 2013, 10:24:36 AM
I'm hearing talk about the Cardinal Ouellet of Quebec and previous "primate of Canada" / Archbishop of Quebec as an early frontrunner, though.
You know the saying, who enters a conclave as Pope usually gets out as Cardinal.
But who knows. "Poor Canada", as John Paul II is told to have said when he was told the third secret of Fatima. So maybe the election of Ouellet as last Pope was foretold by the prophecies :P
Any speculation what the secret was?
Quote from: Caliga on February 11, 2013, 11:20:15 AM
The Pope should definitely come from outside of Europe. Fuck Europe. I'm so sick of you people. :)
It took them 500 years t put non-Italians on the chair, so I think a non-European is at least another 500 years off.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 11, 2013, 11:32:09 AM
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 11:00:23 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 11, 2013, 10:24:36 AM
I'm hearing talk about the Cardinal Ouellet of Quebec and previous "primate of Canada" / Archbishop of Quebec as an early frontrunner, though.
You know the saying, who enters a conclave as Pope usually gets out as Cardinal.
But who knows. "Poor Canada", as John Paul II is told to have said when he was told the third secret of Fatima. So maybe the election of Ouellet as last Pope was foretold by the prophecies :P
Any speculation what the secret was?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Secrets_of_F%C3%A1tima#Third_secret
QuoteJ.M.J.
The third part of the secret revealed at the Cova da Iria-Fátima, on 13 May 1917.
I write in obedience to you, my God, who command me to do so through his Excellency the Bishop of Leiria and through your Most Holy Mother and mine.
After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: 'Penance, Penance, Penance!'. And we saw in an immense light that is God: 'something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it' a Bishop dressed in White 'we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 11, 2013, 11:32:09 AM
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 11:00:23 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 11, 2013, 10:24:36 AM
I'm hearing talk about the Cardinal Ouellet of Quebec and previous "primate of Canada" / Archbishop of Quebec as an early frontrunner, though.
You know the saying, who enters a conclave as Pope usually gets out as Cardinal.
But who knows. "Poor Canada", as John Paul II is told to have said when he was told the third secret of Fatima. So maybe the election of Ouellet as last Pope was foretold by the prophecies :P
Any speculation what the secret was?
I think it was that Languish would die out due to lack of interesting threads and attrition by 2015.
Maybe you have to be a Catholic to understand but: why does anyone give a shit about the Fatima stuff? Wasn't it just a bunch of crap made up by some poor-ass Eggplant shepherd kids? :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on February 11, 2013, 11:51:57 AM
Maybe you have to be a Catholic to understand but: why does anyone give a shit about the Fatima stuff? Wasn't it just a bunch of crap made up by some poor-ass Eggplant shepherd kids? :hmm:
Most (liberal, lapsed, or secular) Catholics nowadays don't. But traditionally (and officially) it was and still is considered a valid miracle. It's a problem, because the existence of miracles is a dogma of faith, so skeptical Catholics doubting the possibility of miracles tread a very fine line with heresy and heterodoxy.
Even the Holy See has a person whose job is to debunk miracles and false prophecies during beatification or canonization processes, aptly named the "Devil's Advocate". Seems the one assigned to the Fatima job in 1917 did a very, very bad job.
Devil's Advocate is not (just) about debunking miracles etc., but about bringing any evidence that could put into doubt the saintly nature of the candidate.
For example, being buried alive is still a disqualifying factor in any canonization process (because the deceased could have blasphemied against God).
Likewise, the author who wrote the critical biography of Mother Theresa also was called to testify, based on his reading of her diary, where she doubted the existence of God.
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2013, 12:04:35 PM
Devil's Advocate is not (just) about debunking miracles etc., but about bringing any evidence that could put into doubt the saintly nature of the candidate.
For example, being buried alive is still a disqualifying factor in any canonization process (because the deceased could have blasphemied against God).
Likewise, the author who wrote the critical biography of Mother Theresa also was called to testify, based on his reading of her diary, where she doubted the existence of God.
Christopher Hitchens was the Advocatus Diaboli for Mother Theresa. He spend the rest of his life proudly declaring that he was the only person who represented the devil Pro Bono. Hitchens also claims that they abolished the office after the Mother Theresa canonization.
Quote from: Viking on February 11, 2013, 12:10:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 11, 2013, 12:04:35 PM
Devil's Advocate is not (just) about debunking miracles etc., but about bringing any evidence that could put into doubt the saintly nature of the candidate.
For example, being buried alive is still a disqualifying factor in any canonization process (because the deceased could have blasphemied against God).
Likewise, the author who wrote the critical biography of Mother Theresa also was called to testify, based on his reading of her diary, where she doubted the existence of God.
Christopher Hitchens was the Advocatus Diaboli for Mother Theresa. He spend the rest of his life proudly declaring that he was the only person who represented the devil Pro Bono. Hitchens also claims that they abolished the office after the Mother Theresa canonization.
According to wiki JPII abolished the position in 1983.
Quote from: derspiess on February 11, 2013, 10:41:31 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2013, 10:35:48 AM
The catholic church in parts of latin america is getting its ass kicked by evangelicals.
I'd say that's fairly isolated for the moment.
Around 10% of the population of the whole continent, with some countries at 20% or so like Brazil and growing is hardly something isolated.
Quote from: The Larch on February 11, 2013, 12:14:56 PM
Around 10% of the population of the whole continent, with some countries at 20% or so like Brazil and growing is hardly something isolated.
Larch, say they were to make the Archbishop of Mexico the next pope. Would that generate any excitement in Spain?
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 11:00:23 AM
You know the saying, who enters a conclave as Pope usually gets out as Cardinal.
I don't know what this means.
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2013, 12:29:14 PM
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 11:00:23 AM
You know the saying, who enters a conclave as Pope usually gets out as Cardinal.
I don't know what this means.
That line gets trotted out at every papal election. It means the conclave never selects the front-runner.
The thing is Ratzinger was the front runner last time... :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2013, 12:29:14 PM
I don't know what this means.
Those cardinals who enter the conclave as favourites rarely come out as popes.
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2013, 12:30:24 PM
The thing is Ratzinger was the front runner last time... :hmm:
Still took two days and four ballots. For all we know maybe he wasn't leading or had a small majority, and cardinals banked around him for a transition pope.
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 12:31:15 PM
Those cardinals who enter the conclave as favourites rarely come out as popes.
Oh gotcha. :)
Quote from: The Larch on February 11, 2013, 12:14:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 11, 2013, 10:41:31 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2013, 10:35:48 AM
The catholic church in parts of latin america is getting its ass kicked by evangelicals.
I'd say that's fairly isolated for the moment.
Around 10% of the population of the whole continent, with some countries at 20% or so like Brazil and growing is hardly something isolated.
Isolated to the poors, then :P
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2013, 12:29:14 PM
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 11:00:23 AM
You know the saying, who enters a conclave as Pope usually gets out as Cardinal.
I don't know what this means.
Hubris = Bad
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2013, 12:24:08 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 11, 2013, 12:14:56 PM
Around 10% of the population of the whole continent, with some countries at 20% or so like Brazil and growing is hardly something isolated.
Larch, say they were to make the Archbishop of Mexico the next pope. Would that generate any excitement in Spain?
Really unlikely. Not even if they chose a Spaniard. Which they shouldn't, since it's pretty clear that Catholicism has lost Spain (and Europe) for good.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 01:02:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2013, 12:24:08 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 11, 2013, 12:14:56 PM
Around 10% of the population of the whole continent, with some countries at 20% or so like Brazil and growing is hardly something isolated.
Larch, say they were to make the Archbishop of Mexico the next pope. Would that generate any excitement in Spain?
Really unlikely. Not even if they chose a Spaniard. Which they shouldn't, since it's pretty clear that Catholicism has lost Spain (and Europe) for good.
I doubt that is clear to the cardinals, however.
They might think that if they choose a Spanish cardinal, the Spanish might flock back to the Church. :bowler:
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2013, 12:24:08 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 11, 2013, 12:14:56 PM
Around 10% of the population of the whole continent, with some countries at 20% or so like Brazil and growing is hardly something isolated.
Larch, say they were to make the Archbishop of Mexico the next pope. Would that generate any excitement in Spain?
Don't think so. Maybe amongst the hard-core, but the population at large would shrug their shoulders and go on.
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2013, 01:03:17 PM
I doubt that is clear to the cardinals, however.
Oh it's clear alright. I'm not their greatest fan, but there are fairly intelligent people among the higher ups. They've seen this coming for decades. The last popes have been making great efforts to bring us back to the right path. But it's all for naught.
Younger generations are markedly uninterested in religion, and the crisis is killing the influx of South American believers.
Quote from: Caliga on February 11, 2013, 01:04:36 PM
They might think that if they choose a Spanish cardinal, the Spanish might flock back to the Church. :bowler:
Nah, our cardinals are a bunch of reactionaries and ultra conservatives with zero connection to the people.
Quote from: The Larch on February 11, 2013, 01:14:16 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 11, 2013, 01:04:36 PM
They might think that if they choose a Spanish cardinal, the Spanish might flock back to the Church. :bowler:
Nah, our cardinals are a bunch of reactionaries and ultra conservatives with zero connection to the people.
Except the guy in Seville (IIRC), but he doesn't really stand a chance for that very same reason.
It's telling that despite an overwhelming conservative majority, Rajoy treads very lightly on gay marriage/adoption.
It's also interesting that the man in charge of turning the clock back on abortion had the worst job approval rates in the government before the recent scandal broke.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 01:02:14 PM
Really unlikely. Not even if they chose a Spaniard. Which they shouldn't, since it's pretty clear that Catholicism has lost Spain (and Europe) for good.
I wouldn't say Catholicism is lost in Europe, as it is still the basis of judeo-christian social norms and tradition. I'd say that 19th-century Catholicism, though, is as dead in Europe as its mores. We are still waiting for the application of the new reform ideas promised by Vatican II.
If the Church accepted to make way for an understanding with secularism, rather than rejecting it outright, you'd find more people willing to call themselves Catholic. That said, I can understand conservative Catholics to refuse any concession out of the fear it might lead to watering down the Church doctrine.
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 01:35:51 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 01:02:14 PM
Really unlikely. Not even if they chose a Spaniard. Which they shouldn't, since it's pretty clear that Catholicism has lost Spain (and Europe) for good.
I wouldn't say Catholicism is lost in Europe, as it is still the basis of judeo-christian social norms and tradition. I'd say that 19th-century Catholicism, though, is as dead in Europe as its mores. We are still waiting for the application of the new reform ideas promised by Vatican II.
If the Church accepted to make way for an understanding with secularism, rather than rejecting it outright, you'd find more people willing to call themselves Catholic.
I dunno man. I think there's a reason the fastest-growing churches are fundamentalist, not liberal.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2013, 12:24:08 PM
Larch, say they were to make the Archbishop of Cologne the next pope. Would that generate any excitement in Bavaria?
Really unlikely. Not even if they chose a Bavarian. Which they shouldn't, since it's pretty clear that Catholicism has lost Bavaria (and Europe) for good.
fyp
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2013, 01:38:41 PM
I dunno man. I think there's a reason the fastest-growing churches are fundamentalist, not liberal.
Because it's simpler. Most of these are holier-than-thou "Praise Jesus and hate sinners as much as sin" doctrines centered around a charismatic preacher, and are closer in spirit to cults rather than churches.
Catholicism is not like that anymore. We have hundreds of years of doctrine, preconceived notions, and rituals that make the system feel very hermetic and resistant to change, with next to no impact and input from the practitionners allowed from bottom to top.
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 01:35:51 PM
If the Church accepted to make way for an understanding with secularism, rather than rejecting it outright, you'd find more people willing to call themselves Catholic.
I'm with Drakken on this one. There's no going back. Religion has simply nothing interesting to offer to potential customers.
By the way, a lot of people call themselves Catholic. The problem for the Church is few of those truly are.
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2013, 01:38:41 PM
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 01:35:51 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 01:02:14 PM
Really unlikely. Not even if they chose a Spaniard. Which they shouldn't, since it's pretty clear that Catholicism has lost Spain (and Europe) for good.
I wouldn't say Catholicism is lost in Europe, as it is still the basis of judeo-christian social norms and tradition. I'd say that 19th-century Catholicism, though, is as dead in Europe as its mores. We are still waiting for the application of the new reform ideas promised by Vatican II.
If the Church accepted to make way for an understanding with secularism, rather than rejecting it outright, you'd find more people willing to call themselves Catholic.
I dunno man. I think there's a reason the fastest-growing churches are fundamentalist, not liberal.
Fundamentalist churches seem to be small fringe groups here though. The by far fastest-growing group seem to be people that just don't care for religion. Not even atheists, just people that don't give a fuck.
Sorry getting massive coverage in the media here, yet I suspect huge disinterest from the populous; on the bbc news website the pope story is 5th most read well behind the top story about Tesco value bolognese being horse-meat. :bowler:
QuoteMost Popular - Read
1: Tesco value bolognese 60% horsemeat
2: Man holding chips fights off attack
3: Facebook sued over 'like' button
4: Mother 'saw son shot in the pub'
5: Pope Benedict in shock resignation
6: One walker found dead on mountain
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 01:48:54 PM
By the way, a lot of people call themselves Catholic. The problem for the Church is few of those truly are.
Yes, it's the attitude of "picking and choosing" what doctrine we'd like to follow, from many lapsed Catholics myself included, that turns off even the Catholic Church from even trying in the first place.
With the Catholic Church, either you believe the full dogma, or you don't. If you don't believe in miracles, or the resurrection of Christ, or Transubstantation, or that every sperm is sacred, or that salvation comes through both grace and works, or that one mortal sin left is enough to leave you suffering in Hell in the total absence from God, then you are lapsed.
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 01:47:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2013, 01:38:41 PM
I dunno man. I think there's a reason the fastest-growing churches are fundamentalist, not liberal.
Because it's simpler. Most of these are holier-than-thou "Praise Jesus and hate sinners as much as sin" doctrines centered around a charismatic preacher, and are closer in spirit to cults rather than churches.
Catholicism is not like that anymore. We have hundreds of years of doctrine, preconceived notions, and rituals that make the system feel very hermetic and resistant to change, with next to no impact and input from the practitionners allowed from bottom to top.
Catholicism has shown that it can be endlessly flexible. There's the theology and doctrine, of course (and by the way the evangelicals do have those as well), but there's also how it is presented.
I don't think the RCC will get more adherents by being more liberal is all I'm saying.
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2013, 01:55:55 PM
Catholicism has shown that it can be endlessly flexible. There's the theology and doctrine, of course (and by the way the evangelicals do have those as well), but there's also how it is presented.
I don't think the RCC will get more adherents by being more liberal is all I'm saying.
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.
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 01:58:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2013, 01:55:55 PM
Catholicism has shown that it can be endlessly flexible. There's the theology and doctrine, of course (and by the way the evangelicals do have those as well), but there's also how it is presented.
I don't think the RCC will get more adherents by being more liberal is all I'm saying.
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.
Most still have some threads left with the Catholic Church, even when steadfast in disagreement around it. Most Catholics become lasped because they feel kicked out of the Church because of their secularism.
Drakken, I "get that". I dare say my jesuit education gives me some idea how the RCC works.
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 01:53:33 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 01:48:54 PM
By the way, a lot of people call themselves Catholic. The problem for the Church is few of those truly are.
Yes, it's the attitude of "picking and choosing" what doctrine we'd like to follow, from many lapsed Catholics myself included, that turns off even the Catholic Church from even trying in the first place.
I was aiming along Zanza's "don't give a fuck" rather than "picking and choosing". In my experience the only time anyone my age visits a church is on weddings, funerals and the like. I've had a grand total of two conversations about religion with my friends. Religion is just irrelevant. Which might be why I find Atheist vs Religious flame wars so amusing. It's something nobody cares about here.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 02:02:27 PM
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 01:53:33 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 01:48:54 PM
By the way, a lot of people call themselves Catholic. The problem for the Church is few of those truly are.
Yes, it's the attitude of "picking and choosing" what doctrine we'd like to follow, from many lapsed Catholics myself included, that turns off even the Catholic Church from even trying in the first place.
I was aiming along Zanza's "don't give a fuck" rather than "picking and choosing". In my experience the only time anyone my age visits a church is on weddings, funerals and the like. I've had a grand total of two conversations about religion with my friends. Religion is just irrelevant. Which might be why I find Atheist vs Religious flame wars so amusing. It's something nobody cares about here.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.memegenerator.net%2Finstances%2F400x%2F24095452.jpg&hash=019790d31184cac20dd47d6a47f19e4bd4678956)
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 02:02:27 PM
Which might be why I find Atheist vs Religious flame wars so amusing. It's something nobody cares about here.
They are funny because they are irrelevant to you? :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2013, 02:20:48 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 02:02:27 PM
Which might be why I find Atheist vs Religious flame wars so amusing. It's something nobody cares about here.
They are funny because they are irrelevant to you? :hmm:
I wouldn't call it amusing or funny, but it sure is interesting to see that religion causes so much controversy and emotion in debates elsewhere when your own position is and that of the society you live in mostly seems to be indifference.
Exactly. One of the things that got to me when I first ventured on the Interwebs was how Americans would constantly define people by their religious denomination. It was so very alien.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 02:35:44 PM
Exactly. One of the things that got to me when I first ventured on the Interwebs was how Americans would constantly define people by their religious denomination. It was so very alien.
In what sense? Unless somebody is super religious, like old school Fahdiz, I do not really think we do this.
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 01:53:33 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 01:48:54 PM
By the way, a lot of people call themselves Catholic. The problem for the Church is few of those truly are.
Yes, it's the attitude of "picking and choosing" what doctrine we'd like to follow, from many lapsed Catholics myself included, that turns off even the Catholic Church from even trying in the first place.
With the Catholic Church, either you believe the full dogma, or you don't. If you don't believe in miracles, or the resurrection of Christ, or Transubstantation, or that every sperm is sacred, or that salvation comes through both grace and works, or that one mortal sin left is enough to leave you suffering in Hell in the total absence from God, then you are lapsed.
As a Catholic myself, I say that makes sense. If you don't believe resurrection of Christ or whatever then pick a church that does.
Quote from: Josephus on February 11, 2013, 02:46:16 PM
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 01:53:33 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 01:48:54 PM
By the way, a lot of people call themselves Catholic. The problem for the Church is few of those truly are.
Yes, it's the attitude of "picking and choosing" what doctrine we'd like to follow, from many lapsed Catholics myself included, that turns off even the Catholic Church from even trying in the first place.
With the Catholic Church, either you believe the full dogma, or you don't. If you don't believe in miracles, or the resurrection of Christ, or Transubstantation, or that every sperm is sacred, or that salvation comes through both grace and works, or that one mortal sin left is enough to leave you suffering in Hell in the total absence from God, then you are lapsed.
As a Catholic myself, I say that makes sense. If you don't believe resurrection of Christ or whatever then pick a church that does.
I gotta say that if you don't believe in the resurrection of Christ you can hardly call yourself a christian today.
Quote from: Viking on February 11, 2013, 02:48:04 PM
I gotta say that if you don't believe in the resurrection of Christ you can hardly call yourself a christian today.
:(
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2013, 02:44:47 PM
In what sense? Unless somebody is super religious, like old school Fahdiz, I do not really think we do this.
Yeah, I don't really see that either. Athiests really seem to like to stake out their positions here on Languish, but most of the ones I've known in real life haven't been quite as talkative about it.
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2013, 02:49:37 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 11, 2013, 02:48:04 PM
I gotta say that if you don't believe in the resurrection of Christ you can hardly call yourself a christian today.
:(
That bit about him being sacrificed for our salvation and returning to life is sort of the entire point of the religion. It's actually the only bit you can't leave out.
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2013, 02:44:47 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 02:35:44 PM
Exactly. One of the things that got to me when I first ventured on the Interwebs was how Americans would constantly define people by their religious denomination. It was so very alien.
In what sense? Unless somebody is super religious, like old school Fahdiz, I do not really think we do this.
Yes you do (maybe not you personally). Quite a few times I see people described as Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Baptists and so on. You probably don't notice. I know don't anymore. But back then it was something that sounded strange.
To put it into perspective, I have been at this job for five years and I don't know whether anyone at the place is religious at all. It hasn't come up even once.
Quote from: Syt on February 11, 2013, 11:36:20 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 11, 2013, 11:32:09 AM
Quote from: Drakken on February 11, 2013, 11:00:23 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 11, 2013, 10:24:36 AM
I'm hearing talk about the Cardinal Ouellet of Quebec and previous "primate of Canada" / Archbishop of Quebec as an early frontrunner, though.
You know the saying, who enters a conclave as Pope usually gets out as Cardinal.
But who knows. "Poor Canada", as John Paul II is told to have said when he was told the third secret of Fatima. So maybe the election of Ouellet as last Pope was foretold by the prophecies :P
Any speculation what the secret was?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Secrets_of_F%C3%A1tima#Third_secret
QuoteJ.M.J.
The third part of the secret revealed at the Cova da Iria-Fátima, on 13 May 1917.
I write in obedience to you, my God, who command me to do so through his Excellency the Bishop of Leiria and through your Most Holy Mother and mine.
After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: 'Penance, Penance, Penance!'. And we saw in an immense light that is God: 'something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it' a Bishop dressed in White 'we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.
Well, that's pretty clear.
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2013, 02:44:47 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 02:35:44 PM
Exactly. One of the things that got to me when I first ventured on the Interwebs was how Americans would constantly define people by their religious denomination. It was so very alien.
In what sense? Unless somebody is super religious, like old school Fahdiz, I do not really think we do this.
I got the impression from following American media that religious affiliation is mentioned considerably more often for politicians than here and seems to play a much bigger role in defining political positions too. Our previous federal chancellor left out the "So help me god" when he was sworn in for office. No one cared, whereas I would expect a major debate about it in America if Obama had done that at his recent inauguration.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 03:10:22 PM
Yes you do (maybe not you personally). Quite a few times I see people described as Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Baptists and so on. You probably don't notice. I know don't anymore. But back then it was something that sounded strange.
Now I can sort of see that. But keep in mind you guys are a lot more religiously homogeneous than we are. Here in the US, different religions or denominations can be of cultural significance.
Quote from: Zanza on February 11, 2013, 03:15:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2013, 02:44:47 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 02:35:44 PM
Exactly. One of the things that got to me when I first ventured on the Interwebs was how Americans would constantly define people by their religious denomination. It was so very alien.
In what sense? Unless somebody is super religious, like old school Fahdiz, I do not really think we do this.
I got the impression from following American media that religious affiliation is mentioned considerably more often for politicians than here and seems to play a much bigger role in defining political positions too. Our previous federal chancellor left out the "So help me god" when he was sworn in for office. No one cared, whereas I would expect a major debate about it in America if Obama had done that at his recent inauguration.
That would not be a major debate there would be outrage :lol:
But that is different from me going around defining people by their religious denomination. Heck I have no idea what Obama's religious denomination is, besides the fact he attended black Christian church. Baptist? No idea.
But if there was a Jewish politician nobody in Euroland would care? Heck people mentioned it about Sarkozy and it was not him but his father who was a Jew.
Quote from: Viking on February 11, 2013, 02:48:04 PM
I gotta say that if you don't believe in the resurrection of Christ you can hardly call yourself a christian today.
I disagree. Many progressive christians are focusing more on the underlying message of Jesus (rather than the rest of the Bible) and putting aside the miracles, etc. When Rowan Williams was archbishop of canterbury he came under criticism by some senior members of the church for holding onto the specific belief in teh resurrection.
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2013, 03:25:09 PM
But that is different from me going around defining people by their religious denomination. Heck I have no idea what Obama's religious denomination is, besides the fact he attended black Christian church. Baptist? No idea.
I don't know either. But I do know that there was a debate about the preacher in his Chicago church who had extreme positions apparently.
Which is more than I know about the religious affiliation of just about any German politician. Merkel is supposedly Protestant, but I certainly can't tell from any of her political positions.
There was something about Bush being a born-again methodist or so and Carter renouncing baptism. Romney being a Mormon featured prominently in the campaign and Santorum's or Huckabee's overt religiosity played an instrumental role in their respective campaigns. Mentioning that Kennedy was the only Roman Catholic president so far or stuff like that just doesn't seem to be relevant here.
Could be that it is because of the much higher religious variance that derspiess mentions.
QuoteBut if there was a Jewish politician nobody in Euroland would care? Heck people mentioned it about Sarkozy and it was not him but his father who was a Jew.
The mayor of Frankfurt was elected recently and happens to be a Jew. That was mentioned when he was elected. However I would argue that it was mentioned not because of any religious implications for his policies, but rather because the Nazis had ousted the last Jewish mayor of Frankfurt in 1933 .
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2013, 03:29:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 11, 2013, 02:48:04 PM
I gotta say that if you don't believe in the resurrection of Christ you can hardly call yourself a christian today.
I disagree. Many progressive christians are focusing more on the underlying message of Jesus (rather than the rest of the Bible) and putting aside the miracles, etc. When Rowan Williams was archbishop of canterbury he came under criticism by some senior members of the church for holding onto the specific belief in teh resurrection.
It seems that the words progressive, moderate and anglican are merely euphemisms for non-belief these days.
But on Williams
QuoteJohn Shelby Spong once accused Williams of being a 'neo-medievalist', preaching orthodoxy to the people in the pew but knowing in private that it is not true.[27] In an interview with Third Way Magazine Williams responded: "I am genuinely a lot more conservative than he would like me to be. Take the Resurrection. I think he has said that of course I know what all the reputable scholars think on the subject and therefore when I talk about the risen body I must mean something other than the empty tomb. But I don't. I don't know how to persuade him, but I really don't."[28]
He was criticized for hypocracy, in preaching one thing and believing another. His response was that he believed in the resurrection despite the rumors to the contrary.
Actual Christ Followers (those who deny the divinty of but advocate the philosophy of) Jesus Christ are unfortunately few and far between since apart from the nice stuff he says he is a millennial end of days prophet.
Quote from: Zanza on February 11, 2013, 03:39:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2013, 03:25:09 PM
But that is different from me going around defining people by their religious denomination. Heck I have no idea what Obama's religious denomination is, besides the fact he attended black Christian church. Baptist? No idea.
I don't know either. But I do know that there was a debate about the preacher in his Chicago church who had extreme positions apparently.
Which is more than I know about the religious affiliation of just about any German politician. Merkel is supposedly Protestant, but I certainly can't tell from any of her political positions.
There was something about Bush being a born-again methodist or so and Carter renouncing baptism. Romney being a Mormon featured prominently in the campaign and Santorum's or Huckabee's overt religiosity played an instrumental role in their respective campaigns. Mentioning that Kennedy was the only Roman Catholic president so far or stuff like that just doesn't seem to be relevant here.
Could be that it is because of the much higher religious variance that derspiess mentions.
But if there was a Jewish politician nobody in Euroland would care? Heck people mentioned it about Sarkozy and it was not him but his father who was a Jew.
[/quote]
Lets not go too far with this. I've heard a number of Europeans bring up Romney's religion when explaining that he is unfit for office.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2013, 03:44:33 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 11, 2013, 03:39:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2013, 03:25:09 PM
But that is different from me going around defining people by their religious denomination. Heck I have no idea what Obama's religious denomination is, besides the fact he attended black Christian church. Baptist? No idea.
I don't know either. But I do know that there was a debate about the preacher in his Chicago church who had extreme positions apparently.
Which is more than I know about the religious affiliation of just about any German politician. Merkel is supposedly Protestant, but I certainly can't tell from any of her political positions.
There was something about Bush being a born-again methodist or so and Carter renouncing baptism. Romney being a Mormon featured prominently in the campaign and Santorum's or Huckabee's overt religiosity played an instrumental role in their respective campaigns. Mentioning that Kennedy was the only Roman Catholic president so far or stuff like that just doesn't seem to be relevant here.
Could be that it is because of the much higher religious variance that derspiess mentions.
But if there was a Jewish politician nobody in Euroland would care? Heck people mentioned it about Sarkozy and it was not him but his father who was a Jew.
Lets not go too far with this. I've heard a number of Europeans bring up Romney's religion when explaining that he is unfit for office.
They probably meant "Republican" and not "Mormon" when they referred to his religion though. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2013, 03:44:33 PM
Lets not go too far with this. I've heard a number of Europeans bring up Romney's religion when explaining that he is unfit for office.
I would never vote for someone if he openly talked about is religion either.
Quote from: Zanza on February 11, 2013, 03:45:59 PM
They probably meant "Republican" and not "Mormon" when they referred to his religion though. :P
They get enough Mormon missionaries over there to know to be wary :ph34r:
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 03:47:29 PM
I would never vote for someone if he openly talked about is religion either.
Generally if you are part of an unpopular minority religion you are not going to allowed to just not address it at some point. Believe me Romney did not go out to his way to show how Mormon he was.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 03:47:29 PM
I would never vote for someone if he openly talked about is religion either.
You'd never be able to vote for an American politician then. :lol: FWIW I would like to agree with you but as an American it does mean I'd never be voting for a mainstream candidate.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 03:10:22 PM
To put it into perspective, I have been at this job for five years and I don't know whether anyone at the place is religious at all. It hasn't come up even once.
Well to put it into perspective (;)), I generally have no idea if my co-workers are religious or not - simply isn't a topic that generally comes up. Though there have been the exceptions of the one women that wanted me to come to her church events and the time a couple of us talked about the kind of churches we went to as children.
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2013, 03:48:12 PM
They get enough Mormon missionaries over there to know to be wary :ph34r:
Personally I can't help but find deliciously ironic to see someone from the Americas trying to convert us for a change. :lol:
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2013, 03:44:33 PM
Lets not go too far with this. I've heard a number of Europeans bring up Romney's religion when explaining that he is unfit for office.
I would never vote for someone if he openly talked about is religion either.
I wouldn't rule out voting for somebody who's religious provided he could explain his beliefs in a coherent, rational and reasonable manner.
Quote from: Viking on February 11, 2013, 03:41:25 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2013, 03:29:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 11, 2013, 02:48:04 PM
I gotta say that if you don't believe in the resurrection of Christ you can hardly call yourself a christian today.
I disagree. Many progressive christians are focusing more on the underlying message of Jesus (rather than the rest of the Bible) and putting aside the miracles, etc. When Rowan Williams was archbishop of canterbury he came under criticism by some senior members of the church for holding onto the specific belief in teh resurrection.
It seems that the words progressive, moderate and anglican are merely euphemisms for non-belief these days.
But on Williams
QuoteJohn Shelby Spong once accused Williams of being a 'neo-medievalist', preaching orthodoxy to the people in the pew but knowing in private that it is not true.[27] In an interview with Third Way Magazine Williams responded: "I am genuinely a lot more conservative than he would like me to be. Take the Resurrection. I think he has said that of course I know what all the reputable scholars think on the subject and therefore when I talk about the risen body I must mean something other than the empty tomb. But I don't. I don't know how to persuade him, but I really don't."[28]
He was criticized for hypocracy, in preaching one thing and believing another. His response was that he believed in the resurrection despite the rumors to the contrary.
Actual Christ Followers (those who deny the divinty of but advocate the philosophy of) Jesus Christ are unfortunately few and far between since apart from the nice stuff he says he is a millennial end of days prophet.
According to a quick google search, the guy you quote (spong) is a retired bishop and current theologian who does not believe in the resurrection.
You can assert that means he is not a christian, but when you start declaring senior clergy in established churches to be non christian I tend toward the view your definition is too narrow.
Quote from: Viking on February 11, 2013, 03:50:41 PM
I wouldn't rule out voting for somebody who's religious provided he could explain his beliefs in a coherent, rational and reasonable manner.
Sadly, I don't think I'll ever have the chance of voting for someone who can explain anything in a coherent, rational and reasonable manner.
Quote from: Syt on February 11, 2013, 11:35:34 AM
It took them 500 years t put non-Italians on the chair, so I think a non-European is at least another 500 years off.
This. The Home Office in Rome isn't known for its progressive thinking, thanks to the stamp JP2 put on it.
Oullet sounds intriguing, apparently fluent in several languages and quite impressive intellectually, but I just don't see a non-European pontiff considering the sheer number of votes they have. My money's on Schonborn in Vienna, he's relatively young at 68 and a conservative.
Then again, wasn't that long ago I thought I'd never see a black President in my lifetime, either. So who the hell knows.
QuoteLONDON — Bookmakers have been quick to offer odds on candidates to replace Pope Benedict XVI, with cardinals from Ghana, Nigeria and Canada among the early favorites.
Ghana's Cardinal Peter Turkson, Canada's Cardinal Marc Ouellet and Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria lead in betting with Britain's major bookmakers.
William Hill made Turkson — one of the highest-ranking African cardinals at the Vatican — its 3/1 favorite Monday, followed by Ouellet at 7/2 and Arinze at 4/1. Ladbrokes also had Turkson as favorite, followed by Arinze and Ouellet.
Ireland's Paddy Power also offered short odds on the three, as well as long odds on unlikely candidates — including U2 singer Bono at 1,000/1. It also offered 1,000/1 odds on Father Dougal Maguire, the simpleminded fictional priest from 1990s U.K. sitcom "Father Ted", and installed Richard Dawkins at "666/1". :lol:
QuoteThe Center for Constitutional Rights, which is pursuing a case against the pope and other Vatican leaders on behalf of victims of sexual abuse in the international criminal court, said that Pope Benedict's resignation will make international prosecution easier.
:lol: Good luck with that. Maybe they can grab him during the same dragnet they get Kissinger and Cheney.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 03:57:29 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 11, 2013, 03:50:41 PM
I wouldn't rule out voting for somebody who's religious provided he could explain his beliefs in a coherent, rational and reasonable manner.
Sadly, I don't think I'll ever have the chance of voting for someone who can explain anything in a coherent, rational and reasonable manner.
:lol:
Yeah I was about to say that that is a pretty high bar for a politician.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 03:57:29 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 11, 2013, 03:50:41 PM
I wouldn't rule out voting for somebody who's religious provided he could explain his beliefs in a coherent, rational and reasonable manner.
Sadly, I don't think I'll ever have the chance of voting for someone who can explain anything in a coherent, rational and reasonable manner.
You're Spanish right?
Yeah. Out politicians can't even lie properly. Look at this hilarious .gif of our beloved President right when he tells the nation he's never received any bribe money. Hint: left eye.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuppix.net%2F8%2F0%2Fd%2F51c194f3d7ba19ffa2c117cb21683.gif&hash=924c8fd4d033868610fbbc12612779bc56f87196)
The issue in my mind is not the one of religion or not-religion but rather the issue of intellectual honesty. I can't trust a man who picks a-la-carte from a religious text. If he can explain to me how he decides which bits are relevant and how they will affect his policy then I'll be able to judge him on his policy. If he merely throws up nebulous obfuscation then I can't trust him.
Quote from: Viking on February 11, 2013, 04:18:07 PM
The issue in my mind is not the one of religion or not-religion but rather the issue of intellectual honesty. I can't trust a man who picks a-la-carte from a religious text. If he can explain to me how he decides which bits are relevant and how they will affect his policy then I'll be able to judge him on his policy. If he merely throws up nebulous obfuscation then I can't trust him.
:lol: You are too much dude.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2013, 03:29:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 11, 2013, 02:48:04 PM
I gotta say that if you don't believe in the resurrection of Christ you can hardly call yourself a christian today.
I disagree. Many progressive christians are focusing more on the underlying message of Jesus (rather than the rest of the Bible) and putting aside the miracles, etc. When Rowan Williams was archbishop of canterbury he came under criticism by some senior members of the church for holding onto the specific belief in teh resurrection.
And that's fine as a way of life. But it's not exactly Christianity, and, most importantly, it's not CAtholicism. My earlier point was you're welcome to believe that Christ wasn't the Son of God, didn't resurrect from the dead, and that gay sex is cool. But you can't be Catholic at the same time.
So anyway, will he go back to being Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger? Will he be Pontifex Emeritus? :hmm:
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 04:08:50 PM
Yeah. Out politicians can't even lie properly. Look at this hilarious .gif of our beloved President right when he tells the nation he's never received any bribe money. Hint: left eye.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuppix.net%2F8%2F0%2Fd%2F51c194f3d7ba19ffa2c117cb21683.gif&hash=924c8fd4d033868610fbbc12612779bc56f87196)
Hey neat, the President of Spain looks like my Dad. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on February 11, 2013, 05:00:20 PM
So anyway, will he go back to being Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger? Will he be Pontifex Emeritus? :hmm:
Censor? :P
Quote from: Caliga on February 11, 2013, 05:00:20 PM
So anyway, will he go back to being Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger? Will he be Pontifex Emeritus? :hmm:
Last papal resignation was 600 years ago, so not a lot of precedent.
Apparently Gregory XII did continue to be called by his papal name. He will continue to be a bishop, and could theoretically be appointed a cardinal by his successor.
Quote from: Caliga on February 11, 2013, 05:00:20 PM
So anyway, will he go back to being Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger? Will he be Pontifex Emeritus? :hmm:
Lepidus disapproves of Ratzinger. A Pontificate is for life (one does not abandon it). A Pontificate is holy (Augustus doesn't assassinate pontiffs).
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2013, 05:06:48 PM
Apparently Gregory XII did continue to be called by his papal name. He will continue to be a bishop, and could theoretically be appointed a cardinal by his successor.
If Ratzinger was younger, could the Conclave elect him again? :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on February 11, 2013, 05:11:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2013, 05:06:48 PM
Apparently Gregory XII did continue to be called by his papal name. He will continue to be a bishop, and could theoretically be appointed a cardinal by his successor.
If Ratzinger was younger, could the Conclave elect him again? :hmm:
Yes, but since one can turn down an election, you hardly see why they'd bother to do so.
Because it'd be funny? Come on, we're talking about a bunch of bored old closeted homos here. :)
Anyway, I'm amused by all of the editorials (CNN, BBC, etc.) I've seen saying he was a disappointing Pope. How does one be a non-disappointing Pope anymore? Wave a magic wand and make the pedophiles vanish? :hmm:
Quote from: Josephus on February 11, 2013, 04:50:49 PM
And that's fine as a way of life. But it's not exactly Christianity, and, most importantly, it's not CAtholicism. My earlier point was you're welcome to believe that Christ wasn't the Son of God, didn't resurrect from the dead, and that gay sex is cool. But you can't be Catholic at the same time.
That is because several christian sects, notably including Catholicism, have been quite inflexible regarding doctrine and prone to expel people for deviations from orthodoxy. There are historical reasons for that. But it doesn't have to be that way.
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2013, 02:44:47 PM
In what sense? Unless somebody is super religious, like old school Fahdiz, I do not really think we do this.
Good times.
Quote from: Caliga on February 11, 2013, 05:15:32 PM
Anyway, I'm amused by all of the editorials (CNN, BBC, etc.) I've seen saying he was a disappointing Pope. How does one be a non-disappointing Pope anymore? Wave a magic wand and make the pedophiles vanish? :hmm:
The conventional wisdom was that he was only going to be a placeholder Pope to begin with, the kind that allowed the JP2 era to cement and provide a bridge before the big vote for the the Next Big Pope(tm) that would be around for decades. The fact that he was actually more activist than expected is a credit to him, as he could've just mailed it in.
I think it's cool that he resigned and kudos to him for doing that if he felt like he couldn't continue (assuming like I said earlier this isn't due to some scandal).
Quote from: Viking on February 11, 2013, 04:18:07 PM
I can't trust a man who picks a-la-carte from a religious text.
That's one of the silliest bars to trust I've ever heard someone espouse.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 11, 2013, 05:27:56 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 11, 2013, 05:15:32 PM
Anyway, I'm amused by all of the editorials (CNN, BBC, etc.) I've seen saying he was a disappointing Pope. How does one be a non-disappointing Pope anymore? Wave a magic wand and make the pedophiles vanish? :hmm:
The conventional wisdom was that he was only going to be a placeholder Pope to begin with, the kind that allowed the JP2 era to cement and provide a bridge before the big vote for the the Next Big Pope(tm) that would be around for decades. The fact that he was actually more activist than expected is a credit to him, as he could've just mailed it in.
Actually, this is probably an extremely positive precedent for the church. For 2000 years, people who get really sick or old, die. Now they can go on life support. In an Ariel Sharon type situation the church would be screwed. Appointing really old guys to rule until they die is not a good management strategy.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 11, 2013, 05:29:52 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 11, 2013, 04:18:07 PM
I can't trust a man who picks a-la-carte from a religious text.
That's one of the silliest bars to trust I've ever heard someone espouse.
It's not a bar for trust. It is a condition which necessitates mistrust. You've got it the wrong way round.
Quote from: Viking on February 11, 2013, 05:44:31 PM
It's not a bar for trust. It is a condition which necessitates mistrust. You've got it the wrong way round.
Those are functionally equivalent, and equally silly.
Quote from: Caliga on February 11, 2013, 05:11:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2013, 05:06:48 PM
Apparently Gregory XII did continue to be called by his papal name. He will continue to be a bishop, and could theoretically be appointed a cardinal by his successor.
If Ratzinger was younger, could the Conclave elect him again? :hmm:
Only if the Holy Spirit guides them to.
I also continue to be baffled by Viking's apparent preference for internally consistent catastrophic error over logically inconsistent muddling.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 11, 2013, 06:27:44 PM
I also continue to be baffled by Viking's apparent preference for internally consistent catastrophic error over logically inconsistent muddling.
His dictionary is missing the pages between praetor and prairie ? :unsure:
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2013, 01:55:55 PMCatholicism has shown that it can be endlessly flexible. There's the theology and doctrine, of course (and by the way the evangelicals do have those as well), but there's also how it is presented.
I don't think the RCC will get more adherents by being more liberal is all I'm saying.
Indeed. I think it does as an 'eternal' counter-culture. The most popular and fastest growing churches in the UK, especially for converts, are the more conservative Latin mass style ones. Most cradle Catholics'll go anywhere but there's a growing number of people who take the whole liturgy (Benedict's real conservatism was felt here) very seriously and they're not liberal. The Economist did a story on the UK surge of traditionalists recently.
The only big issue I think most Catholics would entirely disagree with the Church on is contraception, which is also an area that the Church was internally divided on. Doctrine and other social teachings have broad support.
QuoteThen again, wasn't that long ago I thought I'd never see a black President in my lifetime, either. So who the hell knows.
I think the last bit's right. Who knows? The Conclave's historically tended to be surprising. One of Benedict's lesser known changes was, I believe, that he removed JPII's reforms to the Conclave.
The reforms meant that after a set period of time the Conclave would no longer need a 2/3 majority, rather just a simple majority. Obviously there's a huge number of potential problems with that and it's an interesting possibility that it could've helped in Ratzinger's speedy election. But I think that's gone and we're back to 2/3 majority.
QuoteThe conventional wisdom was that he was only going to be a placeholder Pope to begin with, the kind that allowed the JP2 era to cement and provide a bridge before the big vote for the the Next Big Pope(tm) that would be around for decades. The fact that he was actually more activist than expected is a credit to him, as he could've just mailed it in.
Ironically, given the attacks he gets by bien pensant pundits in the media, he downplayed the culture war far more than JP. He was more about things like liturgical reform and actual theology. I think he was a quietly impressive Pope who'll end up, historically, getting far more respect than he currently has. But I think you're right the next one could be big - not least because electing a 65 year old isn't necessarily a big deal now there's a precedent for a Pope stepping down.
Also I love that this story broke so soon because a journalist understood the Pope's Latin resignation speech. Which is impressive.
Never doubt the use of a classical education :lol:
I got the feeling Benny never really wanted the job in the first place.
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2013, 05:06:48 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 11, 2013, 05:00:20 PM
So anyway, will he go back to being Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger? Will he be Pontifex Emeritus? :hmm:
Last papal resignation was 600 years ago, so not a lot of precedent.
Apparently Gregory XII did continue to be called by his papal name. He will continue to be a bishop, and could theoretically be appointed a cardinal by his successor.
Radio said this morning he'll step back to Cardinal again. He won't be in the conclave (not sure if that goes because he's ex-Pope or because he's over 80). The plan seems to be that he retires to a former nunnery and spends the remainder of his days in study, prayer and meditation (which was seems t have been his original plan 10 years ago, too).
He always struck me as a reluctant pope - he was a scholar and theologian first, and wanted to dedicate himself to that. Still, I always had the impression that if he had a duty he'd see it through properly (he's German, after all :P ), so stepping down when he thinks he's no longer adequate in the role seems a logical step.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 11, 2013, 11:16:26 PM
I got the feeling Benny never really wanted the job in the first place.
Yeah, as said earlier, he had plans for retirement and going back to study/writing. This whole Pope thing put a bit of a crimp on that. I'm not an expert, but a number of commentators call him one of the best scholars/theologians the church had.
Quote from: Syt on February 12, 2013, 01:02:24 AM
Radio said this morning he'll step back to Cardinal again.
In terms of titles I've read that he'll be Bishop of Rome emeritus too.
:D
Quote from: fahdiz on February 11, 2013, 05:51:43 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 11, 2013, 05:44:31 PM
It's not a bar for trust. It is a condition which necessitates mistrust. You've got it the wrong way round.
Those are functionally equivalent, and equally silly.
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.
Think of it this way. I mistrust people who are Bears fans. Person A is not a Bears fan. It does not follow that I trust Person A. Person B is a Bears fan. I does follow that I mistrust person B.
Quote from: mongers on February 11, 2013, 06:32:00 PM
His dictionary is missing the pages between praetor and prairie ? :unsure:
Pragmatism and "bad logic" are not synonyms.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 11, 2013, 06:27:44 PM
I also continue to be baffled by Viking's apparent preference for internally consistent catastrophic error over logically inconsistent muddling.
I don't make shit up to make myself feel better. I'm not coming up with catastrophic error here, I seem to be the only person to realize that not-blue is different from red.
Apparently non-photo-shop picture of St. Peter's Basilica, last night:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fc257.r57.cf3.rackcdn.com%2F0ff3e75b9490eb34565b22b7b03c33cd2317992051-1360651471-5119e4cf-620x348.jpg&hash=b3423569448cb7bc998986c888fc67255396eb60)
:ph34r: :pope:
What's the difference between the Polish and the German social system?
A Pole works until he drops dead, a German works until his retirement.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2013, 08:26:01 PM
Also I love that this story broke so soon because a journalist understood the Pope's Latin resignation speech. Which is impressive.
Never doubt the use of a classical education :lol:
Well I would assume a journalist posted to Vatican should speak the language.
Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2013, 02:50:40 AM
Apparently non-photo-shop picture of St. Peter's Basilica, last night:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fc257.r57.cf3.rackcdn.com%2F0ff3e75b9490eb34565b22b7b03c33cd2317992051-1360651471-5119e4cf-620x348.jpg&hash=b3423569448cb7bc998986c888fc67255396eb60)
:ph34r: :pope:
Not to worry. Ratzinger practicing his force storms.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2013, 03:22:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2013, 02:50:40 AM
Apparently non-photo-shop picture of St. Peter's Basilica, last night:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fc257.r57.cf3.rackcdn.com%2F0ff3e75b9490eb34565b22b7b03c33cd2317992051-1360651471-5119e4cf-620x348.jpg&hash=b3423569448cb7bc998986c888fc67255396eb60)
:ph34r: :pope:
Not to worry. Ratzinger practicing his force storms.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Focvarsity.freedomblogging.com%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F05%2Femperor-palpatine.jpg&hash=dadd091d8bf82acb400e94bd4fd97c7a4bd60b8b)
the bit snipped from the top of that image
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2013, 02:44:47 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on February 11, 2013, 02:35:44 PM
Exactly. One of the things that got to me when I first ventured on the Interwebs was how Americans would constantly define people by their religious denomination. It was so very alien.
In what sense? Unless somebody is super religious, like old school Fahdiz, I do not really think we do this.
You do. the same way we Europeans use nationality
Quote from: Tamas on February 12, 2013, 04:04:00 AM
You do. the same way we Europeans use nationality ethnicity
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.
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:
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.
:lol:
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! :)
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.
My mother does that kind of stuff too, though she's a lapsed Methodist.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2013, 01:27:06 PM
Good grief.
I didn't make a shitstorm out of this, Fahdiz did.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2013, 02:50:40 AM
Apparently non-photo-shop picture of St. Peter's Basilica, last night:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fc257.r57.cf3.rackcdn.com%2F0ff3e75b9490eb34565b22b7b03c33cd2317992051-1360651471-5119e4cf-620x348.jpg&hash=b3423569448cb7bc998986c888fc67255396eb60)
:ph34r: :pope:
I guess God voted already.
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.
Your command of English is normally really good, but I'm just going to put this down to it not being your native language.
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 01:24:18 PM
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.
I don't see how those are different. A bar to trust means that if a person fails to meet said condition, you can't trust them (and thus mistrust them) - it says nothing about whether or not that means you would trust them if they met the condition.
Or are you saying that there are people you trust even if they don't meet that condition?
Quote from: dps on February 12, 2013, 01:44:51 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.
Your command of English is normally really good, but I'm just going to put this down to it not being your native language.
My command of English is more than sufficient. Fahdiz brought up the bar to trust when I wasn't talking about that. Fahdiz' other point about how setting the ability to coherently explain and justify ones belief as a bar to trust being silly is stupifyingly stupid.
*sigh* yet another topic about the Pope derailed by grammar nazis.
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2013, 01:50:23 PM
I don't see how those are different.
They're semantically different and functionally identical, which is exactly what I was getting at.
And if Viking wants everyone to be completely internally consistent before "trusting" them, then that's his problem rather than mine. It must be a strange planet on which he lives, because it doesn't appear to be the one where the rest of us reside.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 02:04:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2013, 01:50:23 PM
I don't see how those are different.
They're semantically different and functionally identical, which is exactly what I was getting at.
Yeah, I agree with you. That's why I feel like there must be something different he is trying to say.
But otherwise yeah I agree with the part I cropped out.
Quote from: PDH on February 12, 2013, 01:56:21 PM
*sigh* yet another topic about the Pope derailed by grammar nazis.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-nqkpIn0rHVo%2FUE-AI5PcUZI%2FAAAAAAAAwdY%2FYZNEFAhvDpE%2Fs406%2Fgood-grammar-is-sexy-tote-bag-.png&hash=aa641e0e59b821a67c5f6231a75bad400577e579)
But one can still be sexy without (as well as one can still be unsexy even if they meet that condition). :)
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 01:52:46 PM
Fahdiz' other point about how setting the ability to coherently explain and justify ones belief as a bar to trust being silly is stupifyingly stupid.
:D
Yep, it's stupid to expect that the vast majority of human beings harbor internal inconsistencies and that such things aren't of necessity impediments to trust. :D I wouldn't, by the way, question your quality of English. It's quite good. I've no issue with it.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 02:09:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 01:52:46 PM
Fahdiz' other point about how setting the ability to coherently explain and justify ones belief as a bar to trust being silly is stupifyingly stupid.
:D
Yep, it's stupid to expect that the vast majority of human beings harbor internal inconsistencies and that such things aren't of necessity impediments to trust. :D I wouldn't, by the way, question your quality of English. It's quite good. I've no issue with it.
It should be considering how long he lived here. :P
Quote from: dps on February 12, 2013, 01:14:54 PM
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.
Yes.
Viking, everyone else seems to get it. Perhaps the issue isn't all the rest of us.
Quote from: Ralph Waldo Emerson
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds
Viking is right; trust no one :ph34r:
Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 02:04:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2013, 01:50:23 PM
I don't see how those are different.
They're semantically different and functionally identical, which is exactly what I was getting at.
And if Viking wants everyone to be completely internally consistent before "trusting" them, then that's his problem rather than mine. It must be a strange planet on which he lives, because it doesn't appear to be the one where the rest of us reside.
Well on my planet there are three categories
- Untrustworthy
- Trustworthyness not yet established
- Trustworthy
BS'ing about your faith puts you in the Untrustworthy category, not BS'ing about your faith doesn't put you in the Trustworthy one.
Does this make it clear to you? This is one of the issues that comes up in every single religion flame war we have here. They are flame wars because I don't think my opponents make any serious attempt (with the exception of JR) to understand me before constructing strawmen and attacking them. The issue is the one of doubt and uncertainty, it exists in my "world" the tentative, the unclear and the unknown are real categories and the fundamental difference between me and the religious is that they put god in those boxes and claim certainty and think that I put not-god in those boxes and claim certainty. That is very specifically not the case for me.
Quote from: dps on February 12, 2013, 01:44:51 PM
Your command of English is normally really good, but I'm just going to put this down to it not being your native language.
Yeah, that's a good way to defuse the situation :P
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2013, 02:11:22 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 02:09:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 01:52:46 PM
Fahdiz' other point about how setting the ability to coherently explain and justify ones belief as a bar to trust being silly is stupifyingly stupid.
:D
Yep, it's stupid to expect that the vast majority of human beings harbor internal inconsistencies and that such things aren't of necessity impediments to trust. :D I wouldn't, by the way, question your quality of English. It's quite good. I've no issue with it.
It should be considering how long he lived here. :P
I count my 3 years in Australia as cancelling out 3 of my years in England, leaving me with 3 English and 5 American years.
Though I sometimes see obvious translation errors creep in, errors in english that happen when I keep grammar and word order from the language I first had the though in. Depending on topic I'll think in English, Icelandic or Norwegian <- note the strange word order? That thought was first thought in Norwegian and the word order is much more natural in Norwegian.
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 02:38:34 PM
Quote from: dps on February 12, 2013, 01:44:51 PM
Your command of English is normally really good, but I'm just going to put this down to it not being your native language.
Yeah, that's a good way to defuse the situation :P
+1 that was really fucking insulting.
I considered replying
"Your command of logic is normally really good, ....."
or
"Your command of reason...."
but it really wouldn't make my point and it would just be me picking on the special needs kid of languish. :cool:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 12, 2013, 02:34:40 PM
Viking is right; trust no one :ph34r:
I didn't say that or say anything consistent with that and I don't think that.
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 02:35:47 PM
Well on my planet there are three categories
- Untrustworthy
- Trustworthyness not yet established
- Trustworthy
BS'ing about your faith puts you in the Untrustworthy category, not BS'ing about your faith doesn't put you in the Trustworthy one.
:unsure:
That's what Fahdiz said.
QuoteDoes this make it clear to you? This is one of the issues that comes up in every single religion flame war we have here. They are flame wars because I don't think my opponents make any serious attempt (with the exception of JR) to understand me before constructing strawmen and attacking them. The issue is the one of doubt and uncertainty, it exists in my "world" the tentative, the unclear and the unknown are real categories and the fundamental difference between me and the religious is that they put god in those boxes and claim certainty and think that I put not-god in those boxes and claim certainty. That is very specifically not the case for me.
It sounds like you're projecting this onto Fahdiz, rather than it being anything that he actually said.
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 02:35:47 PM
Well on my planet there are three categories
- Untrustworthy
- Trustworthyness not yet established
- Trustworthy
BS'ing about your faith puts you in the Untrustworthy category, not BS'ing about your faith doesn't put you in the Trustworthy one.
I never said it did. :wacko:
QuoteDoes this make it clear to you? This is one of the issues that comes up in every single religion flame war we have here. They are flame wars because I don't think my opponents make any serious attempt (with the exception of JR) to understand me before constructing strawmen and attacking them. The issue is the one of doubt and uncertainty, it exists in my "world" the tentative, the unclear and the unknown are real categories and the fundamental difference between me and the religious is that they put god in those boxes and claim certainty and think that I put not-god in those boxes and claim certainty. That is very specifically not the case for me.
Your "opponents"? Your opinion of yourself seems over-inflated. Do you have archenemies too? A nemesis or three?
Your position's been clear from the beginning. It was that position to which I called attention. I never constructed a strawman. If you want to persist in that fallacy you're more than welcome to, but no one else appears to be buying it.
Quote from: merithyn on February 12, 2013, 02:47:44 PM
:unsure:
That's what Fahdiz said.
The thing is, Meri - even if he eventually understands it, I don't think he's capable of retracting it. Doesn't seem to be in his nature to admit a mistake.
Additionally, I think where Viking's running into a logical stumbling block is that he assumes an internal inconsistency is equivalent to "BSing about your faith". If everyone with an inconsistency *was* in fact *deliberately obfuscating* something about their faith then I could see how he might find those people untrustworthy. The simple fact of the matter is that in the majority of cases, they aren't deliberately doing that at all.
What baffles me right now that somebody is arguing that internal consistency of arguments is bad.
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 03:01:42 PM
What baffles me right now that somebody is arguing that internal consistency of arguments is bad.
The part that baffled me is a group whose agruments are not internally consistent at all are being held up by you as paragons of it.
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 02:44:16 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 12, 2013, 02:34:40 PM
Viking is right; trust no one :ph34r:
I didn't say that or say anything consistent with that and I don't think that.
I know, you just delude yourself into thinking that some people like yourself are internally consistent. :contract:
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 03:01:42 PM
What baffles me right now that somebody is arguing that internal consistency of arguments is bad.
:lol:
Excellent, I am glad to see you've decided to give us an example of a strawman. I assume that's what you're doing, right? Because you can't have just been complaining about strawmen and then turned right around and offered your own. Could you?
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 03:01:42 PM
What baffles me right now that somebody is arguing that internal consistency of arguments is bad.
Of course it is. Pluralism's useless if it's not internal as well. The ability to hold two contradictory positions is what makes us human and warped and worth knowing.
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 02:42:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 02:38:34 PM
Quote from: dps on February 12, 2013, 01:44:51 PM
Your command of English is normally really good, but I'm just going to put this down to it not being your native language.
Yeah, that's a good way to defuse the situation :P
+1 that was really fucking insulting.
I considered replying
"Your command of logic is normally really good, ....."
or
"Your command of reason...."
but it really wouldn't make my point and it would just be me picking on the special needs kid of languish. :cool:
I wasn't trying to be insulting. I'm trying to understand why you are complaining about fahdiz using the phrase "bar to trust" when its meaning is consitent with your discription of your position. Garbon and meri (and fahdiz himself) don't seem to see any conflict between his characterization and what you posted, yet you do. That suggests that the term, "bar to trust" doesn't mean what you think it means. We all agree that you said you don't trust anyone whose positions aren't internally consistant, but that doesn't mean that you automatically trust someone just because their positions are internally consistant. Everyone but you agrees that that means that for you, holding internally inconsistent positions constitutes a bar to trust. The alternative sto this being a language problem are either that grumbler has hijacked your account, or that you just don't know what the hell you're talking about. I'd think either of those is more insulting than thinking that perhaps this is an English idiom that you don't quite get.
I have not read the thread but I see who started it. I am going to take a wild guess and say that by this point Marti has retreated the field but Viking is still hanging in there after making some kind of anti-religious remark.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2013, 06:21:31 PM
I have not read the thread but I see who started it. I am going to take a wild guess and say that by this point Marti has retreated the field but Viking is still hanging in there after making some kind of anti-religious remark.
Actually, the ruckus is over the meaning of the term "bar to trust". I kid you not.
Quote from: dps on February 12, 2013, 06:31:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2013, 06:21:31 PM
I have not read the thread but I see who started it. I am going to take a wild guess and say that by this point Marti has retreated the field but Viking is still hanging in there after making some kind of anti-religious remark.
Actually, the ruckus is over the meaning of the term "bar to trust". I kid you not.
You gotta love Languish
This headline tweet from The Onion is actually funny:
Pope Reaches Out To Catholic Youth By Joining Twitter, Giving Up On Catholicism
Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 03:19:49 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 03:01:42 PM
What baffles me right now that somebody is arguing that internal consistency of arguments is bad.
:lol:
Excellent, I am glad to see you've decided to give us an example of a strawman. I assume that's what you're doing, right? Because you can't have just been complaining about strawmen and then turned right around and offered your own. Could you?
You know he's crazy, right?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2013, 08:31:09 PM
You know he's crazy, right?
We're all crazy. It's a matter of degree, not necessarily kind.
Quote from: dps on February 12, 2013, 06:31:30 PM
Actually, the ruckus is over the meaning of the term "bar to trust". I kid you not.
What's unfortunate is that I think the other discussion - whether or not it is bizarre and counterproductive to automatically distrust someone who evidences internal inconsistencies - is a hell of a lot more interesting.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 08:51:05 PM
Quote from: dps on February 12, 2013, 06:31:30 PM
Actually, the ruckus is over the meaning of the term "bar to trust". I kid you not.
What's unfortunate is that I think the other discussion - whether or not it is bizarre and counterproductive to automatically distrust someone who evidences internal inconsistencies - is a hell of a lot more interesting.
I don't. Pretty much everyone "evidences internal inconsistencies."
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2013, 08:52:31 PM
I don't. Pretty much everyone "evidences internal inconsistencies."
Oh, I quite agree. I guess I was wondering how, given that, Viking finds interpersonal relationships possible at all.
He's as paranoid as Raz?
Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 08:55:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2013, 08:52:31 PM
I don't. Pretty much everyone "evidences internal inconsistencies."
Oh, I quite agree. I guess I was wondering how, given that, Viking finds interpersonal relationships possible at all.
Well he is an engineer...
Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 08:55:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2013, 08:52:31 PM
I don't. Pretty much everyone "evidences internal inconsistencies."
Oh, I quite agree. I guess I was wondering how, given that, Viking finds interpersonal relationships possible at all.
I suppose he could go the CdM route and just keep women chained up in his basement.
Quote from: dps on February 12, 2013, 10:09:57 PM
I suppose he could go the CdM route and just keep women chained up in his basement.
Can't trust even a chained-up woman!
Quote from: fahdiz on February 13, 2013, 12:11:08 PM
Quote from: dps on February 12, 2013, 10:09:57 PM
I suppose he could go the CdM route and just keep women chained up in his basement.
Can't trust even a chained-up woman!
Just keep paper clips away from them. They'll work the lock all night if you let 'em.
One thing that I just read someone mentioning that I haven't thought about before.
Upon his resignation, Ratzinger will no longer be protected by his head-of-state immunity. There are private charges and lawsuits against him (both concerning his tenure as the head inquisitor and the Pope) in Europe and Americas, concerning his role in covering up pedophilia scandals.
This could get interesting. :hmm:
Not really, he won't live long enough.
Quote from: Martinus on February 19, 2013, 04:54:49 AM
One thing that I just read someone mentioning that I haven't thought about before.
Upon his resignation, Ratzinger will no longer be protected by his head-of-state immunity. There are private charges and lawsuits against him (both concerning his tenure as the head inquisitor and the Pope) in Europe and Americas, concerning his role in covering up pedophilia scandals.
This could get interesting. :hmm:
He's going to live in Vatican City until his death. I don't know how the Holy See feels about extradition.
He can still be tried in absentia and of course can be a defendant in civil lawsuits.
The enforcement of such judgements would be a different thing, but that would still be a reputational hit for Vatican.
I can't believe that anybody fell for Viking's anti-religious trolling. Come on, guys.
Quote from: Martinus on February 19, 2013, 08:22:30 AM
He can still be tried in absentia and of course can be a defendant in civil lawsuits.
The enforcement of such judgements would be a different thing, but that would still be a reputational hit for Vatican.
Not really. The people who care about that sort of thing are already pretty much dead set against the Vatican as it is. And the people who hate the Vatican are pretending to care about child abuse.
Quote from: Martinus on February 19, 2013, 08:22:30 AM
He can still be tried in absentia and of course can be a defendant in civil lawsuits.
The enforcement of such judgements would be a different thing, but that would still be a reputational hit for Vatican.
It would be a reputational hit for any country that puts a retired pope on trial in absentia.
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 08:45:34 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 19, 2013, 08:22:30 AM
He can still be tried in absentia and of course can be a defendant in civil lawsuits.
The enforcement of such judgements would be a different thing, but that would still be a reputational hit for Vatican.
Not really. The people who care about that sort of thing are already pretty much dead set against the Vatican as it is.
Yeah that's what I was thinking too.
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 08:45:34 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 19, 2013, 08:22:30 AM
He can still be tried in absentia and of course can be a defendant in civil lawsuits.
The enforcement of such judgements would be a different thing, but that would still be a reputational hit for Vatican.
Not really. The people who care about that sort of thing are already pretty much dead set against the Vatican as it is. And the people who hate the Vatican are pretending to care about child abuse.
Yeah, if Marty cares about child abuse he should have shown it when Roman Polanski looked like he was going to extradited.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 19, 2013, 12:22:05 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 08:45:34 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 19, 2013, 08:22:30 AM
He can still be tried in absentia and of course can be a defendant in civil lawsuits.
The enforcement of such judgements would be a different thing, but that would still be a reputational hit for Vatican.
Not really. The people who care about that sort of thing are already pretty much dead set against the Vatican as it is. And the people who hate the Vatican are pretending to care about child abuse.
Yeah, if Marty cares about child abuse he should have shown it when Roman Polanski looked like he was going to extradited.
I think Marti thinks the latter gets a pass as an auteur.
You give him too much credit. I don't think Marty thinks.
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 08:45:34 AM
And the people who hate the Vatican are pretending to care about child abuse.
Bingo.