The Pope

[geeunit000]

there are people in the states that are saying pope bennidict is a nazi... what do you think?

is he one or not!?!?!

[Light Samurai]

there are people in the states that are saying pope bennidict is a nazi... what do you think?

is he one or not!?!?!
All I know is that the pope is half-vampire.
Peace and Love.
(PS. it's a inside Joke between me and GS. :p )

[Samanosuke]

Actually the Pope is the Emperor from Star Wars... Now, you'll not just get excommunicated, you'll get Sith lightning at you as well :D

[Optomitrist]

morons think he is a nazi because he looks evil and is german. I'm not catholic by a long shot, but I dont see why people have to be so quick for name calling.


Lets give him a bit of time beofre we dish out the namecalling :)

[bluhawq]

I read somewhere that when he was young he went to a nazi training camp or something like that. It doesn't make him a Nazi tho. Apparently he went there not of his own free will. I'm not catholic btw. And yeah..he does look a bit..erm..scary..heh

[Andoru]

During WWII, participation in the Hitler Youth group was compulsory. He had no choice and participated against his will, so did his brother. His father was anti-nazi by the way. Eventually he left the group to study at the seminary.

The major jewish groups do not doubt his integrity and character, and he's never been accused to be anti-semitic. The pope isa good bloke.

[h2o]

The Incredible Popeman actually deserted from the German Wehrmacht (Armed Forces) in 1945. He was forced into the war in 1943, at the age of 16 or something.
And yes, almost everyone was in Hitler Jugend, that doesn't mean you are a nazi.

[Talen]

Actually the Pope is the Emperor from Star Wars... Now, you'll not just get excommunicated, you'll get Sith lightning at you as well :D

and here's the proof....

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41092000/jpg/_41092303_pope.jpg


Definiately the Emperor ;)

[NorthernKendoka]

Judging from that picture the vatican has made the right choice. Pope Darth Sidious sounds much better then Pope John Paul II.

[Berugijin]

Judging from that picture the vatican has made the right choice. Pope Darth Sidious sounds much better then Pope John Paul II.

Darth Benedictus has a nice ring to it too. Now who will be his apprentice?

[Neil Gendzwill]

He's not a nazi. He's ultra-conservative, and sometimes people misuse nazi as a perjorative in that case (another explanation other than his forced service as a boy).

I disagreed strongly with JPII's policies, and I expect to disagree with Pope B as well, but I wouldn't use that term.

[tattooedasshole]

Perhaps we should allow Benedict to provide some benediction before we lable him? Bandying around the word nazi is way out there. How many of you are actualy familiar with his ideals? I know very little about Ratzinger, and as such I think a little bit of time is requird to see what this pope is like.

[Neil Gendzwill]

How many of you are actualy familiar with his ideals?
He was JPII's right-hand man for 20 years, and responsible for quite a bit of his policies, especially those keeping the traditional roles of women in the church, against birth control, etc. Nobody observing the situation expects any significant change from JPII's policies, which is why he was elected - an old, ill, place-holder pope solidly from the previous regime who's going to give them some breathing room for a few years until he dies while they decide the direction they want to go with the next guy. Of course, he might still surprise - maybe he's been nursing some big ideas all these years.

[crabbi]

He was JPII's right-hand man for 20 years, and responsible for quite a bit of his policies, especially those keeping the traditional roles of women in the church, against birth control, etc. Nobody observing the situation expects any significant change from JPII's policies, which is why he was elected - an old, ill, place-holder pope solidly from the previous regime who's going to give them some breathing room for a few years until he dies while they decide the direction they want to go with the next guy. Of course, he might still surprise - maybe he's been nursing some big ideas all these years.
John Paul II was unwell for many years... his health had particularly deteriorated after the assassination attempt and the onset of Parkinson's Disease...

He was an exceptionally bright man, very strong of character and knowledgeable. His views (to me) were too conservative and his support of Opus Dei and the punishment of some of the more radical left wing Liberation Theologians in South America (like Leonardo Boff) were certainly too harsh and evidence of his Conservatism.

Having said that, you have to admire his staying power and that, despite all this adversity, he remained active right up to the end of his life.

During his later years he must have come more and more to rely on his inner circle of advisors... chief among these being Cardinal Ratzinger ... Now Pope Benedict XVI... you would expect a man operating at this level for 20 years to be more than just an advisor / passive bystander... his influence must have been significant.

What am saying is that it is probably less a matter of him continuing down the path as defined by John Paul II and more a case of him continuing down his own path...

As has been said, we need to give him time... he doesn't have the avuncular, charismatic presence of John Paul II... and I can't say that I particularly welcomed the choice, but let's see how it pans out.

...and yes, I am a Roman Catholic...

cheers

[Commander]

here here, i am a proddie but my mum is a catholic so i am quite religious.

I think its disgusting at what people are saying/doing, he's a holy man for goodness sake, they ought to get a grip and give the man a chance.

Did i mention i am also half Italian.

[Nkd666]

Did i mention i am also half Italian.

Which half?:smiley:

[Commander]

Which half?:smiley:

Left :wink:

[watanabe2k]

Just had to post the link to this pic.......

http://www.dullahan.com/stuff/papa.jpg

[Samanosuke]

Everything is proceding as I have forseen...

[bluhawq]

Just had to post the link to this pic.......

http://www.dullahan.com/stuff/papa.jpg

ARGH...no wonder he looked sooo familiar!

[KhawMengLee]

Just had to post the link to this pic.......

http://www.dullahan.com/stuff/papa.jpg

duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude, thats scary...

[Kirsty]

Just had to post the link to this pic.......

http://www.dullahan.com/stuff/papa.jpg

Thats awesome =P

[Fonsz]

Did i mention i am also half Italian.
So this should explain the snazzy bogu, always thought that folks from Scotland to be a bit .....well plain. This sure sheds some light on matters. Is your Bogu now approved by Hai Hai, because he never put it down last time I checked.

[Commander]

So this should explain the snazzy bogu, always thought that folks from Scotland to be a bit .....well plain. This sure sheds some light on matters. Is your Bogu now approved by Hai Hai, because he never put it down last time I checked.

Actually Scottish people are quite fashionable :)
Depends on the area you go to.

Im not sure if i've had his approval.

[Darth Neighbour]

i still got that daily mirror headline in mind: "from hitler youth to papa ratzi"
well, that tells you nothing, cause my grandfather, a farmer from styria, was also forced to join the wehrmacht and even had to fight in finnland. almost every friend of mine got a grandfather that was in the wehrmacht, but no nazis.
to me, it´s like an american, who was part of the peacemovement, but drafted to vietnam. he also had no choice. but he only would go in jail, our grandfathers would have been shot. but enough of that.

the real "problem" is that he is ultra-conservative and already 78, so no change of politics but more fluctuation. so either there will be more older popes (more likely to be conservative) in future for just the look of "modernization", but this won´t help the church´s crisis, or they elect a younger open minded candidate, that is willing to make changes (provided that the conclave wants a reformer next time) and also capable to gain the worlds´ respect and sympathy.
i resigned from the catholic church some time ago, but i think, that the pope is an important factor in the world´s social development for his influence on politics, like jp2 in the cold war.
still, they must learn to accept the changes of time and reform their structures (women priests, celibacy) and their philosophy concerning homosexuality, abortion and contraception.
at least some of the first steps could be made by beni 16th. i hope he will.

[damon4130]

The Catholic church is responsible for an unbelievable amount of (innocent) victims during her excistence: the Crusades, the Inquisition and the slaughtering of the Templar Knights (and other religious groups) by pope Innocentius (what's in a name?) at Friday the 13th, early 13th century. I find it very hard to believe people still have faith in the Catholic Church and the pope as their religious leader.

[Berugijin]

When people refer to the dead pope as "JP2" or "JPII" I always get a mental image of some rapper with heaps of "blingbling" who's down with Jesus.

Jay-Pee, Jay-Lo, Jay-Zee, ...? Sorry this is all I had to contribute to this thread.

[Andoru]

the real "problem" is that he is ultra-conservative and already 78, so no change of politics but more fluctuation. so either there will be more older popes (more likely to be conservative) in future for just the look of "modernization", but this won´t help the church´s crisis, or they elect a younger open minded candidate, that is willing to make changes (provided that the conclave wants a reformer next time) and also capable to gain the worlds´ respect and sympathy.

still, they must learn to accept the changes of time and reform their structures (women priests, celibacy) and their philosophy concerning homosexuality, abortion and contraception.



Let's have a look at another perspective: do you want kendo to change from its present form simply because of changes to social perceptions? What if the meaning of budo is lost?

Like Cardinal Ratzinger (as he then was) said in the last public mass before the conclave, the Church cannot simply change just because of changes in the winds. The Church is the protector of the words of god i.e. the bible. As Ratzinger says, the winds of change cannot hide nor sway the Truth. The Church has to remain steadfast in this capacity. If the bible says A, the Church cannot say anything else but A. The bible is the spiritual source after all.

Alot of people feel that the church can interpret the bible like judges would to statutory and common law. That merely causes confusion and creates instability - religion loses its significance and purpose if it's opened to such changes.

Granted, the church has made decisions on issues not specifically addressed by the bible, such as married priests. Perhaps these issues may be opened to debate.

For the record, I am a roman catholic, and yes there are church teachings that I disgree with. Still, I prefer my church to be "strong and constant".

[Berugijin]

Let's have a look at another perspective: do you want kendo to change from its present form simply because of changes to social perceptions? What if the meaning of budo is lost?

Interesting perspective... But what if kenjutsu had never changed simply because of evolutions in social perceptions in Japan? What if the meaning of bujutsu is lost?

Your analogy is flawed. The church is an institution that promotes discrimination, kendo is about self-improvement. I've never seen a sensei tell someone she can't be a kendoka because she's female. The catholic church can bite my shiny metal ass.

[Neil Gendzwill]

If the bible says A, the Church cannot say anything else but A. The bible is the spiritual source after all.

Hogwash. That's the fundamentalist Christian view, the Catholic church is anything but that. They don't teach literal creationism, for one glaring example. The Catholic church has always treated the bible as something that needs to be interpreted and understood in a deeper than literal sense. Which is why their steadfast refusal to allow women more power in the church smacks more of male politics than biblical literalism, for another example.

[Akai Bushi]

What I don't understand is how people can say their Catholic, but disagree with what the vatican says.

I also find, as a Baptist, it hard to understand why some people say the Bible doesn't condemn this or that, when they haven't really studied the Bible.

[Berugijin]

What I don't understand is how people can say their Catholic, but disagree with what the vatican says.

I don't understand it either, how dare people to disagree with their (religious/political) leaders? :rolleyes:

Praise the Almighty Lord that there are still some catholics who can think for themselves and not do whatever the vatican tells them to do.

[tattooedasshole]

What I don't understand is how people can say their Catholic, but disagree with what the vatican says.

I also find, as a Baptist, it hard to understand why some people say the Bible doesn't condemn this or that, when they haven't really studied the Bible.
If you tryed to take the bible litteraly, you would have to contradict yourself almost daily. The bible is rife with shit that don't make sense, ie. "We made you in our image", which can be found in every bible.

[Andoru]

Berugijin: it's a crude analogy I must admit. My point is that the church has to stay steadfast in its primary role, and not easily swayed by public perceptions. The meanngs as contained in the bible, according to the church, is Truth. How could one sway truth? Of course, like I said in my post, there are contentious issues not addressed by the bible that are open to interpretations. The issue of female priest is one example. Or celibacy for that matter. I never said that the church is perfect.

Neil: I'm not very well versed in theology - my arguments are based on my experience as a practising catholic. In terms of deeper versus literal interpretations, it seems to me that the former makes more sense. After all, the books of the bible were written a long time ago. As an analogy: when judges interpret statutory laws which contain ambiguous parts, the judges try to interpret them according to the "spirit" (or the purpose, or essence) of the statute itself. Some of the writings in the bible are, for the lack of a better word, contentious - literal application in this day and age would have been disastrous for the church. A quote from The West Wing:

President Bartlet: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

Dr Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination Mr. President, the bible does.

President Bartlet: yes it does, Leviticus.

Dr Jenna Jacobs: 18:22

President Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, and always clears the table when it's her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police?

Here's one that's really important, because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? And WestPoint?

Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John, for planting different crops side by side?

Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?

President Bartlet: Think about those questions would you?

All religions have their flaws, yet they continue to promote the moral good by providing stability, inspiration and emotional comfort. The catholic church is not perfect - I freely admit that. Still, it'd be a big change if one day the pope decided to reverse the view that abortion is morally wrong when the teachings of god have been pro-life in essence. I for one, will be utterly lost.

FWIW.

By the way, what's literal creationism? Is it different from creationism?

[Neil Gendzwill]

[snip the West Wing dialog]
That was actually borrowed pretty much wholesale from a piece called "Letter to Dr. Laura" which was making the rounds. Not sure if the author is known or not.
Still, it'd be a big change if one day the pope decided to reverse the view that abortion is morally wrong when the teachings of god have been pro-life in essence. I for one, will be utterly lost.
Well that's a biggie and I wouldn't expect them to change their stance on that. But I don't see a moral difference between using "natural" contraception (rhythm, Serena) and a condom - both are deliberately "wasting" sperm. It's just that in the latter case, you might also help prevent the spread of this little problem we have called AIDS. That's just one example of an area where the Church absolutely needs to change.
By the way, what's literal creationism? Is it different from creationism?
That's the fundamentalist point of view that the world was literally created in 6 days. The current Catholic view is that evolution is a better explanation for how things came to be as they are, but that God gave it a nudge at the start (and possibly at various points along the way). IOW, evolution is part of God's design/process/what have you. So it's like creationism, but a whole lot lighter on the stupidity.

[Seoul Man]

I'm a protestant myself so I have innate problems with the idea of the papacy at its core. That being said, I understand and accept the enormous consequence of the Catholic church and its influence on the world. The pope is the head of an organization that consists of approximately one billion members. That is a very significant chunk of the world's population who look to the pope for spiritual guidance. I think that the Church has been a force for good in our lives and under Pope Benedict XVI it will continue this tradition. May the Pope live to be 120!

[Berugijin]

About the whole "evolution is a theory invented by satan to test our faith" debate:

http://physics.syr.edu/courses/mirror/biomorph/

It's a Java applet that demonstrates evolution and how complex lifeforms can evolve (cfr The Blind Watchmaker).

I've heard rumours though that satan programmed the applet to test out faith.

[bluhawq]

If you tryed to take the bible litteraly, you would have to contradict yourself almost daily. The bible is rife with shit that don't make sense, ie. "We made you in our image", which can be found in every bible.

rife with shit that don't make sense?Now THAT's a first! Lemme see...last time I checked, the bible came from God..Correct?okay..so..how can that be rife with shit that dont make sense?are u saying God tells u shit that don't make sense?so..in other words..God tells u shit then the smart humans must interpret it themselves?are u saying your intellect is superior then God's in interpreting the bible?geez...some ppl still amaze me..

owh yeah..I'm no christian, catholic, protestent, baptist etc. but I've been approached so many times by religous groups that this quote really surprises me that not everybody thinks the same...

[h2o]

last time I checked, the bible came from God..Correct?
That would really depend on who you ask...

[tattooedasshole]

rife with shit that don't make sense?Now THAT's a first! Lemme see...last time I checked, the bible came from God..Correct?okay..so..how can that be rife with shit that dont make sense?are u saying God tells u shit that don't make sense?so..in other words..God tells u shit then the smart humans must interpret it themselves?are u saying your intellect is superior then God's in interpreting the bible?geez...some ppl still amaze me..

owh yeah..I'm no christian, catholic, protestent, baptist etc. but I've been approached so many times by religous groups that this quote really surprises me that not everybody thinks the same...
Since god didn't write the book ( its was written 200 yrears after christ died, by a roman council).......
Not one of the people who wrote the bible had ever met jesus. The only man who wrote a book, who had met jesus, was barnabus, and his books were burnt for heracy. Perhaps you should do some research.
And if you think that god wrote the bible, you need serious help. Even the bible tells you it was written by man.
Try reading the bible some time, you'll see what I'm talking about.
The bible is full of good moral lessons, but can not be taken 100% litteraly.

[Andoru]

Just want to chime in on that point:

In the catholic church (and other churches), it's acknowledged that men did write the books, but they were considered to be inspired by the holy spirit when doing so. Accordingly, they are words of God. Protestants (such as Calvinism) do not believe in that though.

[gsx1100s]

The Catholic church is responsible for an unbelievable amount of (innocent) victims during her excistence: the Crusades, the Inquisition and the slaughtering of the Templar Knights (and other religious groups) by pope Innocentius (what's in a name?) at Friday the 13th, early 13th century. I find it very hard to believe people still have faith in the Catholic Church and the pope as their religious leader.

Sounds like someone has been reading The Da Vinci Code :wink:

cheers Michael

[gsx1100s]

What I don't understand is how people can say their Catholic, but disagree with what the vatican says.

I also find, as a Baptist, it hard to understand why some people say the Bible doesn't condemn this or that, when they haven't really studied the Bible.


You're obviously not Catholic if you see a problem in disagreeing with the Vatican.....thats a Catholic joke by the way.

A story I was told from a Jewish mate of mine went like this. A man heard a Rabbi cursing God , the man said to the Rabbi "How can you curse God , isn't that blasphemous ?" The Rabbi said "Not at all , to curse God is normal , to doubt his existance is blasphemous."
An interesting take on disagreeing with the head of the Catholic Church .

[drizzt]

A story I was told from a Jewish mate of mine went like this. A man heard a Rabbi cursing God , the man said to the Rabbi "How can you curse God , isn't that blasphemous ?" The Rabbi said "Not at all , to curse God is normal , to doubt his existance is blasphemous." .

ROFLMAO......oh lord thats an excellent joke. btw this was a bad place to start this thread...

[Seiza_Seizure]

there are people in the states that are saying pope bennidict is a nazi... what do you think?

is he one or not!?!?!

Two words for those people in the states calling Pope Benedictine a Nazi.....

Arnold Swarzenegger.......

Sorry I can't resist.... here is another,

Prescott Sheldon Bush, grandfather of...... you guessed it.....
Georgedubbya Bush.
Nazi.... What defines a Nazi?
Maybe one of these names may help me to find the answer.
What do you think?

[Halcyon]

For those of you who can pick up a copy of this week's edition (May 16) of The New Yorker, I would highly recommend reading Peter Boyer's piece on Pope Benedict and the ongoing struggle between the progressive and conservative wings of the Catholic church. Puts many of the topics mentioned above in context.

[bluhawq]

Since god didn't write the book ( its was written 200 yrears after christ died, by a roman council).......
Not one of the people who wrote the bible had ever met jesus. The only man who wrote a book, who had met jesus, was barnabus, and his books were burnt for heracy. Perhaps you should do some research.
And if you think that god wrote the bible, you need serious help. Even the bible tells you it was written by man.
Try reading the bible some time, you'll see what I'm talking about.
The bible is full of good moral lessons, but can not be taken 100% litteraly.

oookay...just a question..why was the books burnt for heracy?(wuts heracy?..forgive me but I can't find my dictionary...bro probably took it~)wouldn't the books be a more valid resource?just wondering~~
Yeah..well..no time for research tho..kendo training and school doesn't allow time for that!:wink:

[Dufus]

I am a Catholic, and proud to be one. The church may have teachings that seem unfair or just don't suit people, but recently I asked myself, is religion about what I want or what God wants? It's clearly about what God wants. Even if God disagrees with what the church teaches, we'll never know, and I figure he'll find it impressive if we stick to a certain set of beliefs. As far as abortion and contraception goes, if you want to know specifics on why the church is against those, talk to a knowledgeable priest. And on the AIDS issue, contraception could stop that, but education, testing, and abstinance would do better. Priest celibacy and women as priests are also things you should ask a good priest about. But in the end, nobody knows exactly what's right, so we should all just try to be generally good people.

[CezarJ]

I don't know what the real definition of Nazi is, but for me it was always think that your nation is best, and that you discriminate other people only because they are not your nationality.

You see, everyone can be a "Nazi", regardless of any german heritage.

[gsx1100s]

I don't know what the real definition of Nazi is, but for me it was always think that your nation is best, and that you discriminate other people only because they are not your nationality.

You see, everyone can be a "Nazi", regardless of any german heritage.

In specific terms a Nazi is a member of the National Socialist Geman Workers Party ( created in 1919 ). In broader terms a Nazi is a Fascist. A Fascist is a person who follows the belief in a government marked by the centralization of power under a dictator , stringent socio economic controls and usually a country rife with rasism and nationalism....you asked :wink:

cheers Michael

[Phil-co]

In specific terms a Nazi is a member of the National Socialist Geman Workers Party ( created in 1919 ). In broader terms a Nazi is a Fascist. A Fascist is a person who follows the belief in a government marked by the centralization of power under a dictator , stringent socio economic controls and usually a country rife with rasism and nationalism....you asked :wink:

cheers Michael

...however, in specific terms, a Fascist is nothing but a member of the Fascist Party in Italy.:wink:

[Oukaranman]

In my humble view religion is neither about what you want nor about what some god wants. A good religion is not suppose to say do... don't. It's supposed to provide an understanding of the environment (universe if one wants) we live in an to provide concepts and ideas on how to find your way in life in a manner which is in harmony with that environment and yourself as you are a part of it. it supposed to show ways of finding and rebuilding strength from your own inner sources as well as from the environment.
And exactly that is what neither christian nor the jewish (in fact what they do is cultivate intolerance at its most despisable; they constantly rant about how they were treated badly in the past, and now look what they do to the palestinians (who were there in the first place). you cannot just pull out an old book and say here it says this is our land. because then any nation could do pull out something from history) religions do. Which in my view makes then probably the two weakest "traditional" religions in existance. Further catholicism was never intended as an actual helpful religion , rather than as an instrument for controlling the lesser educated (an thus quicker to mystical help resorting) population by through clerical institution. Similarly was inquisition never so much intended as a means to exorcise, but as a convenient way for studying the effects forced mental and physical reconfigurations have on the human personality and character.

On the side: just the unbelievable ignorance of israel and some other countries in calling the palestinians terrorists. They nothing more than a people which is fighting for a place to stay, which they deserve like anybody else (and which they had acquired and cultivated before the jews in the first place). The palestinians do not get tons of money and modern weaponry from countries like the U.S (who are too self centered to realize that they are the biggest polluter and useless burner of valuable resources in the world, and have degraded to being the decadent tool of a selfish jewish society). The palestinians have nothing and they fighting for their life the the methods they have available. Anybody who has some understanding of warfare clearly sees that this is they only choice for the palestinians to fight this war against a brutal oppressor. Israel kills children on a daily basis and calls them terrorists even whn provably they were not. But when the palestinians kill israelian children or ppl thats really mean.

Further how can a country like the U.S. in which the knowledge about and understanding of the outside world is close to non-existant claim to be the rightful leader of the world? A country that stacks up two billions US$ in dept a day, and whose economy would collapse the they the europeans and chinese would stop pumping money into it, a country that alone burns two thirds of the worlds resources for its own selfish purposes, and is even not willing to support environmental protocols; a country claiming there economy is more important thant the environmental state of the eart. How can such a country taken seriously?

[Oukaranman]

Let me add. That the U.S always claim that they ended WWII and that they despise nationalsocialism, etc. But had you also studied the time before the U.S entered the war in detail you would found that the U.S. were very much interested in and for the third reich and there was a clear intention to enter the war rather on the side of the germans. The only reason they did not is that Churchil pulled smart political string thus imposing pressure on the U.S to enter the war on the side of the (to be called) allies.

Also let me point out that I am by no means a right extremist or nazi or anywhere close. But fact is america is wrong and israel is wrong period and a big lot of ppl are suffering because of it.

[Oukaranman]

Bluhawq, I fully agree with you. The bible is a good read and certainly not a bad book.there are many useful concepts touched upon. However as a foundation for a religion the size of christianity its a really quite thin (thin in content not size). which is reflected quite well in today society in think.

[tattooedasshole]

oookay...just a question..why was the books burnt for heracy?(wuts heracy?..forgive me but I can't find my dictionary...bro probably took it~)wouldn't the books be a more valid resource?just wondering~~
Yeah..well..no time for research tho..kendo training and school doesn't allow time for that!:wink:
Heresy (my spelling sux) is something that goes directly against the church.

Heresy:
An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member

Barnabus went contrary to alot of what church doctrine says. Eg. Jesus has brothers and sister. The church didn't like this, so his books (most of them at any rate) were burnt.

On a side note, anyone who thinks a couple stayed together, in that period of history, without having more children, is kidding themselves. It's kinda like a flagrantly white jesus, born in a place and time where every one would have been black.

As per a "more" valid point of view......I think it is, but obviously there's alot of people who will disagree. As none of us was alive, it's kind of a moot point.

I try and take all perspectives, from as many religions as i can find info on, and make up my own mind. You should be able to immerse yourself in all ways, while becoming more, and more in accord with your own.

A little about barnabus http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintb12.htm

[bluhawq]

So that is what heracy means eh?..erm..just wondering..if Barnabus actually met Jesus..wouldn't he know better if Jesus had siblings or not?

[tattooedasshole]

So that is what heracy means eh?..erm..just wondering..if Barnabus actually met Jesus..wouldn't he know better if Jesus had siblings or not?
Yes he would, but that doesn't mean that the church will change its position. If they had agreed with him, the book of barnabus would be in the bible (like it's supposed to be). But as the bible was put together by a roman council, it doesn't exactly reflect what chirstians of the time believed (at least thats my perspective).

[drizzt]

actualy the bible is relativly amibiguos on the point of christs family. we realy dont see any of them after he leaves home until his death.

i would like to make a correctionon an early assertation. The bible was not written by a roman council. Most of it is letters of correspondance between paul of tarsus and varius churches. the origins of the gospels were also pre-cananization texts.

[tattooedasshole]

actualy the bible is relativly amibiguos on the point of christs family. we realy dont see any of them after he leaves home until his death.

i would like to make a correctionon an early assertation. The bible was not written by a roman council. Most of it is letters of correspondance between paul of tarsus and varius churches. the origins of the gospels were also pre-cananization texts.
Not written by, but "organized" by. And changed when things didn't meet their needs. Eg.The father son and holy ghost make 3, yet, you shall have no other god but me (singular). Changed because they belived it would be easier for people to understand a ploytheistic point of view.

[drizzt]

actualy the father son and the holy host are not gods....... they are three parts, but one God. they refer to God the father, The son, who is christ, and the holy spirit, wich is kinda difficult to explain. it does not promote christ to god status


and yes, much of wht we see in modern bibles has been modified(or had been), by the early catholic church. now its evn worse because newer, more "progressive" groups like the southern baptist convention have started rewriting things to make absolutley no sense whatsoever.

the best translations are taken directly from greek and hebrew texts.

[tattooedasshole]

it does not promote christ to god status
Nope, we did that ourselves. The fact that people pray to jesus, calling him their "lord and saviour" has proped him up to god status. It's kinda funny actualy. Idolotry is against church doctrine, yet every (well, at least catholic) church has a huge idol of jesus.....lmao.
Totaly agree about the hebrew and greek texts as they are the oldest.
Don't get me started on baptists, anglicans, ect. lol

[drizzt]

he is our saviour, but i have a serious issue with the lord part as well.


the anglican church is radicaly different from the baptist church. the anglican church is the catholic church with the english monarch running it.........

the baptist churches run the gammit anywere from a fairly traditional...... albeit very arrogant, proffesing they are the only true form of protestant church........protestant groups, all the way to the nut jobs in the southern baptist convention who have set themselves up to function like a baptist papacy. talk about play invent-a-religion........i particularly enjoy the anouncement that baptism is no longer necessary, despite the fact CHRIST HIMSELF was baptised, and then repeatedly commanded his disciples to do it. that is a portion of text most bibles, even ancient ones, are very clear on.


ill tell you were you dont want to get me started on, the new international version and new king james versions of the bible(along with a few others). I have never seen such a blatently biased cock-and-bull translation of ANY ancient text, much less the bible, in my life. lets omit sections, or better yet put them in but claim they cant be authenticated, because they dont conform to the en-vogue ideas of the day. thats just bad translation work from a historical standpoint, much less religious.

[kuwaiti-kendoka]

I'm not even christian, but i guess he is a nice fellow... i guess

[bluhawq]

ooookay...at a BIG RISK of offending all christians, catholics, erm..and other related religions..I have come up with a few questions of my own..

1. If the bible has been re-written by the church (i.e. man) according to the needs of man for the particular period, why should one believe in it?

2. Does the church control what the followers should believe in?

3. How can the son be the God at the and not be the God at the same time?let me rephrase that. How could Jesus be the son of God but not be God when the 3 in 1 thingy(can't remember what u call that) has the son in it meaning the son is God as well???(argh...this is killing me...better go back to studying~~)

p/s: I'm sorry if this offends anyone..just that i've been curious about this long enough-ironic this topic should come up in a Kendo Forum..=)

[tattooedasshole]

ooookay...at a BIG RISK of offending all christians, catholics, erm..and other related religions..I have come up with a few questions of my own..

1. If the bible has been re-written by the church (i.e. man) according to the needs of man for the particular period, why should one believe in it?

2. Does the church control what the followers should believe in?

3. How can the son be the God at the and not be the God at the same time?let me rephrase that. How could Jesus be the son of God but not be God when the 3 in 1 thingy(can't remember what u call that) has the son in it meaning the son is God as well???(argh...this is killing me...better go back to studying~~)

p/s: I'm sorry if this offends anyone..just that i've been curious about this long enough-ironic this topic should come up in a Kendo Forum..=)
The problem is human nature. The curch, especially historicaly (not much anymore), put alot of power into the hands of few. As such it is easily corrupted. The church controls what we se/hear about the word of god, and thus what people "should believe".
The "holy triumvirate" was created to apease the populace who enjoyed their polytheistic views, and didn't want another monotheistic religion (eg.jewish).
Although the bible has been re-written, the message found within is still relevant, if not perfectly factual.
Don't worry about offending people. If people get offended when someone questions their religion, they may need to re-evaluate their beliefs. Questioning is natural. If you never ask, you'll never know.

[Phil-co]

ooookay...at a BIG RISK of offending all christians, catholics, erm..and other related religions.

Catholics and Protestants are both Christians. It's not two different religions, but two different interpretations of the same faith.

[nikolaj]

myeah, personally, I'm pretty much atheist.
I believe in some of the values Christ might have taught, but as a historical figure, I can't really say I'm that much of a fan.
(by that I mean that there are others in history in which I'd put more faith.)
And is there a god or a heaven and hell? well, as cliche as it may sound, I'll see when I get there, though right now, reincarnation and afterlife both sound as unbelievable to me.

[projectnavi]

myeah, personally, I'm pretty much atheist.
I believe in some of the values Christ might have taught, but as a historical figure, I can't really say I'm that much of a fan.
(by that I mean that there are others in history in which I'd put more faith.)
And is there a god or a heaven and hell? well, as cliche as it may sound, I'll see when I get there, though right now, reincarnation and afterlife both sound as unbelievable to me.

I need to read more about reincarnation...its been way too long.

i was raised christian, but i don't have any faith in the catholic religion, personnaly. i prefere the teaching of the Bouddha about self-discipline (sp?) and the awareness of human potential within each individual.

but i sure do need to read alot more...i haven't finished reading all of his teachings. hard to get focussed on that with school lately.

[gsx1100s]

I need to read more about reincarnation...its been way too long.

i was raised christian, but i don't have any faith in the catholic religion, personnaly. i prefere the teaching of the Bouddha about self-discipline (sp?) and the awareness of human potential within each individual.

but i sure do need to read alot more...i haven't finished reading all of his teachings. hard to get focussed on that with school lately.


I watched an interesting program on T.V. recently that discussed the theory that Jesus spent time in India and became Bhuddist. He then returned to the Middle East to relay his version of Bhuddism. It chronologically fits ( according to the program) with Jesus' life and the missing years that cannot be accounted for.An interesting idea at least , I like the idea that Christianity might be a melting pot of Judaism and Bhuddism, and thats coming from a Catholic!!:wink:

cheers Michael

[projectnavi]

oh, interesting indeed.

i guess that would be hard to demonstrate, but its worth a closer look for sure.

where was aired that program? what was the program name, you know?

project