So in retrospect...Good Pope / Bad Pope?
Discussion
I think he was undoubtedly a man of conviction, who did stand up against some communist tyranny. But I can't forgive the totally irresponsible line on contraception especially in Africa where his line has contributed to soaring birth rates and the spread of HIV. He was also very homophobic and denied women equal rights in the eyes of the church.
He also condemned our retaking of the Falklands in 1982, and I really can't agree with that at all.
What do you think?
He also condemned our retaking of the Falklands in 1982, and I really can't agree with that at all.
What do you think?
Jaglover said:
An irrelevance.....
Now that is certainly untrue
He is certainly an irrelavence in the West. He is certainly absurd. His condemnation of homosexuality is inhuman and flies in the face of his stance on human rights. His main sphere of influence has been in the third world and the man has done a poor job. So overall he should be condemned. As for criticising us in the Falklands? Every man who served there made a greater contribution than this pope. We left the sickness when Henry 8 wanted a new squease, as a result the world moved on. Nothing good ever came from the Vatican city, best move is to dynamite the lot, time for a change.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
With regards to women in the church who care what you think God's rules bend for nobody, nor should man's will.
-As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (NIV, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35)
-A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV, 1 Timothy 2:11-12).
Homosexuals have no place in the church, it is sin and must be kept out,www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%205-6 next you'll want the ordination of paedophile priests
The church love it or leave it
>> Edited by beaconbouy on Sunday 3rd April 00:33
nonegreen said:Bloody hell Nonners....a topic I agree with you about. Unsure about the dynamite though, a tad harsh eh?
mybrainhurts said:
An irrelevance.....
Now that is certainly untrue
He is certainly an irrelavence in the West. He is certainly absurd. His condemnation of homosexuality is inhuman and flies in the face of his stance on human rights. His main sphere of influence has been in the third world and the man has done a poor job. So overall he should be condemned. As for criticising us in the Falklands? Every man who served there made a greater contribution than this pope. We left the sickness when Henry 8 wanted a new squease, as a result the world moved on. Nothing good ever came from the Vatican city, best move is to dynamite the lot, time for a change.
Greg
nonegreen said:
He is certainly an irrelavence in the West. He is certainly absurd. His condemnation of homosexuality is inhuman and flies in the face of his stance on human rights. His main sphere of influence has been in the third world and the man has done a poor job. So overall he should be condemned. As for criticising us in the Falklands? Every man who served there made a greater contribution than this pope. We left the sickness when Henry 8 wanted a new squease, as a result the world moved on. Nothing good ever came from the Vatican city, best move is to dynamite the lot, time for a change.
Thats a bit harsh. To say that nothing good ever came of the Vatican City is pushing it. The crowds in St. Peters and the media frenzy certainly would seem to indicate that the man was anything but irrelevant, or unloved. He wasn't condemning homsexuality, the Falklands, or Condoms because he wanted to offend and hurt, but because that was what he honestly thought best. That counts for something, doesn't it? More than that, it would be sort of hard for the earthly leader of a church tocome out and defy two thousand years of teachings. He wasn't an evil man, perhaps a bit outdated though.
sirtophamhat said:
Thats a bit harsh. To say that nothing good ever came of the Vatican City is pushing it. The crowds in St. Peters and the media frenzy certainly would seem to indicate that the man was anything but irrelevant, or unloved. He wasn't condemning homsexuality, the Falklands, or Condoms because he wanted to offend and hurt, but because that was what he honestly thought best. That counts for something, doesn't it? More than that, it would be sort of hard for the earthly leader of a church tocome out and defy two thousand years of teachings. He wasn't an evil man, perhaps a bit outdated though.
As I person, I doubt he was inherently evil or unpleasant, and yes there were a lot of issues that the Catholic church could handle better, as with any religious organisation.
I recently visited Rome, and was amazed and equally appalled by the Vatican, it's gaudy excess seems in stark contrast to it's role as the holy city, representing Christianity, which is surely representing the meek and poor.
I agree 100% with your feelings of the city itself. Vatican City is somewhat at odds with the image of the religion itself. What I was trying to say was that the pope may not have been able to take a different stance on some of those issues, considering the teachings of the church. Regardless of his personal beliefs.
He was in charge during a worldwide epidemic of child abuse by priests. Compensation payments now are bankrupting various bits of the Catholic church. The stories are horrific. In Australian orphanages the priests competed to see who could bugger new arrivals the most times.
His strict view on contraception is a factor in the worldwide spread of AIDS and poverty from over population. Together these have caused widespread death and suffering.
I have always said that looking at the effects of his actions it is the Devil that lives in Vatican City. A small tactical nuclear bomb at the next gathering of Cardinals would do the world a lot of good.
>> Edited by bruciebabie on Sunday 3rd April 08:18
His strict view on contraception is a factor in the worldwide spread of AIDS and poverty from over population. Together these have caused widespread death and suffering.
I have always said that looking at the effects of his actions it is the Devil that lives in Vatican City. A small tactical nuclear bomb at the next gathering of Cardinals would do the world a lot of good.
>> Edited by bruciebabie on Sunday 3rd April 08:18
bruciebabie said:
He was in charge during a worldwide epidemic of child abuse by priests. Compensation payments now are bankrupting various bits of the Catholic church. The stories are horrific. In Ausralian orphanages the priests competed to see who could bugger new arrivals the most times.
His strict view on contraception is a factor in the worldwide spread of AIDS and poverty from over population. Together these have caused widespread death and suffering.
I have always said that looking at the effects of his actions it is the Devil that lives in Vatican City. A small tactical nuclear bomb at the next gathering of Cardinals would do the world a lot of good.
for a brief moment yesterday, I thought "oh shame"
but when you put it like that.....
nonegreen said:
mybrainhurts said:
An irrelevance.....
Now that is certainly untrue
He is certainly an irrelavence in the West. He is certainly absurd. His condemnation of homosexuality is inhuman and flies in the face of his stance on human rights. His main sphere of influence has been in the third world and the man has done a poor job. So overall he should be condemned. As for criticising us in the Falklands? Every man who served there made a greater contribution than this pope. We left the sickness when Henry 8 wanted a new squease, as a result the world moved on. Nothing good ever came from the Vatican city, best move is to dynamite the lot, time for a change.
Just because he is following policies you don't agree with does not make him irrelevant.
Jaglover said:
Jaglover said:
mybrainhurts said:
An irrelevance.....
Now that is certainly untrue
He is certainly an irrelavence in the West. He is certainly absurd. His condemnation of homosexuality is inhuman and flies in the face of his stance on human rights. His main sphere of influence has been in the third world and the man has done a poor job. So overall he should be condemned. As for criticising us in the Falklands? Every man who served there made a greater contribution than this pope. We left the sickness when Henry 8 wanted a new squease, as a result the world moved on. Nothing good ever came from the Vatican city, best move is to dynamite the lot, time for a change.
Just because he is following policies you don't agree with does not make him irrelevant.
Nothing to do with what I agree or don't agree with. This country ousted the catholics centuries ago.
The rest of the civilised world now accepts homosexuals as an integral part of our society an demands they take part in every mainstream activity. It is illegal to discriminate against them as it is to discriminate against 50% of the population ie women. the Pope has been persuing his policies in the part of the world he presides over which is mostly South America and Africa. To that extent as I said he is an irrelavance. In case you had not noticed a largely catholic Europe no longer continues to produce large families of 6 or more children. They do not achieve this by the sodding rythm method, how much more proof do you need that the silly man was of no interest to anyone in the West?
Oh and when he came to my city they made provision for 3 million to come out and see him and about 40000 showed up.
nonegreen said:
Nothing to do with what I agree or don't agree with. This country ousted the catholics centuries ago.
The rest of the civilised world now accepts homosexuals as an integral part of our society an demands they take part in every mainstream activity. It is illegal to discriminate against them as it is to discriminate against 50% of the population ie women. the Pope has been persuing his policies in the part of the world he presides over which is mostly South America and Africa. To that extent as I said he is an irrelavance. In case you had not noticed a largely catholic Europe no longer continues to produce large families of 6 or more children. They do not achieve this by the sodding rythm method, how much more proof do you need that the silly man was of no interest to anyone in the West?
Oh and when he came to my city they made provision for 3 million to come out and see him and about 40000 showed up.
America is still very religous and it is part of the 'west'-
Jaglover said:
Nothing to do with what I agree or don't agree with. This country ousted the catholics centuries ago.
The rest of the civilised world now accepts homosexuals as an integral part of our society an demands they take part in every mainstream activity. It is illegal to discriminate against them as it is to discriminate against 50% of the population ie women. the Pope has been persuing his policies in the part of the world he presides over which is mostly South America and Africa. To that extent as I said he is an irrelavance. In case you had not noticed a largely catholic Europe no longer continues to produce large families of 6 or more children. They do not achieve this by the sodding rythm method, how much more proof do you need that the silly man was of no interest to anyone in the West?
Oh and when he came to my city they made provision for 3 million to come out and see him and about 40000 showed up.
America is still very religous and it is part of the 'west'-
Ah indeed it is, I have many freinds in South Carolina. They are mostly deeply religious and are horrified at some of the things that go on here in the UK. I get the distinct impression however that God does as he is told in the US.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff