Heartland

taylor wrote:>religion is control.end of story

this is the most stupid thing that hear since I seen this world

you should get out more

I am sorry he had to suffer so much before he finally popped off.

I am also sorry that, given his standing as a moral and ethical guide for millions, he really should have known better when it came to certain of his opinions.

Or should I have known better than to expect it?

Anyway. time to:

Propose a new pope
Elect a new pope
Install a new pope

(Just makes me think of the Little Britain Denis Waterman & his agent sketch )

emilystrange wrote:jihad, for one..

hmmm. defending the faith at all costs, i dunno possibly a stimulator? not sure

for me religion, all of them, set out to do the same thing... answer the big three

why are we here,
how do we live,
what happens to us when we're gone

...and by setting out the moral guidelines handed down from generation to generation, it is undoubtedly a control thing

with regard to the passing of jpII, well i think he did a good job, because as a (non catholic, sorta agnostic anglican erring towards buddhism) i did at least know he existed, what his view points (on most things were, even if i didn't agree) and yet i never felt pressured into accepting his perspectives.

he was a well travelled guy, who seems, at least on the face of it, to have embraced the ideas of the populus of the world, as opposed to the catholic church and that must be a good thing

i feel if he had been more hardline, on abortion and such, it coulda been a great big s**t mess and he was wise enough to go 'slowly slowly catchy monkey'. So hopefully the new guy can build on his good work

*far too serious, i'm off to the thread on green and blacks, and orange flip flops

But do the moral guidelines handed down by most religions really go much beyond basic common sense?

Take out the bits about worship, and you're left with "don't treat people badly". I'm not sure you'd ever get a popular argument against that.

Is that a control thing, or a common sense one?

it's all in the interpretation...

paint it black wrote:

emilystrange wrote:jihad, for one..

hmmm. defending the faith at all costs, i dunno possibly a stimulator? not sure

for me religion, all of them, set out to do the same thing... answer the big three

why are we here,
how do we live,
what happens to us when we're gone

...and by setting out the moral guidelines handed down from generation to generation, it is undoubtedly a control thing

with regard to the passing of jpII, well i think he did a good job, because as a (non catholic, sorta agnostic anglican erring towards buddhism) i did at least know he existed, what his view points (on most things were, even if i didn't agree) and yet i never felt pressured into accepting his perspectives.

he was a well travelled guy, who seems, at least on the face of it, to have embraced the ideas of the populus of the world, as opposed to the catholic church and that must be a good thing

i feel if he had been more hardline, on abortion and such, it coulda been a great big s**t mess and he was wise enough to go 'slowly slowly catchy monkey'. So hopefully the new guy can build on his good work

*far too serious, i'm off to the thread on green and blacks, and orange flip flops

agreed

if he had been an MD, he's have been sacked for the handling of the child abuse scandals

andymackem wrote:But do the moral guidelines handed down by most religions really go much beyond basic common sense?

The dietary laws and such in Leviticus are a bit... odd at times I know that some of the Kosher rules are more to do with interpretation than with the actual laws in the Bible, but there's no real reason to ban shellfish for instance.

I don't see what business a religion has telling anyone who they should or shouldn't sleep with, and the stuff about women being "unclean" during their periods is really out there.

andymackem wrote:Take out the bits about worship, and you're left with "don't treat people badly". I'm not sure you'd ever get a popular argument against that.

Is that a control thing, or a common sense one?

It's the bits about worship that are the control though

Exodus 20 iii-v wrote:Thou shalt have no other gods before me... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

(incidentally, if there are no other gods, who does he have to be jealous of? )

The priests claim authority in God's name; what better justification for a tyrant than that he is doing "God's work"?

I think he was a good man for the good things he did and I forgive him for the backwards mentality because he was old. I'm not that harsh to my grandmother (or mother) who is not fond of homossexuality either. Why do we have to bash the Pope? No one is perfect and he was just a man. Unless you want to see him as more than a man.
And who is more than a man? A god?

dead stars wrote:And who is more than a man? A god?

A cat.

Dark wrote:

dead stars wrote:And who is more than a man? A god?

A cat.

...or so he must think, if he ever reads this forum!

cats ARE gods.

emilystrange wrote:cats ARE gods.

yes

this time agree with you EMS, I like so much them

... at times very heavy gods.

One of these dieties is lying at the moment on both my forearms to detain me from posting.

Wonder why?

Dunno if cats are Gods, but I do love my cat more than the Pope. And I love my kids more than the Pope.


RIP Pope, but I don't miss you at all......

So it's settled, the new pope should be a cat.
Or d00my.

so the question 'is the pope catholic?' may go into decline.