Which is?your OP stated your agenda...
Which is?your OP stated your agenda...
Out on a limb there? I dont know, Fox is reporting a Mormon is the most likely to win.... in a landslide.
.!
awful, sappy, bullshit.
As a self avowed atheist, I do not desire this. I want someone that believes in something and is true to their core, not opportunist based on the whims of the feeble-minded public. I do not want a world of hypocrites, a world of weak minds, a world of spectres fluttering about, with no aim, not particular direction, and no TEETH.
I want someone with their feet planted firmly in the ground. I want an opponent. I want an adversary.
I will always respect those with core conviction infinitely more than those that would reject what they believe to be the word of their almighty god in exchange for political and social accolades in the form of a mild applause or a gold star sticker for most improved.
For a self-avowed atheist you can be awfully pissy about what others believe. I don't spend a single minute whining about atheism, who's an atheist, why they're atheists, is atheism better or worse than religious faith, etc.
You seem conflicted to me.
I think you are missing the point. My argument is likely in a different place than you think it is. It has almost nothing to do with religion itself, and much more to do with honesty, conviction, principles, and the courage of people to stand by what they profess to hold dear.
I despise hypocrites in all forms.
The letter I posted has nothing to do with faith, theology, dogma, etc. It's one man's reflection on the type of person he'd like to see as Pope and I don't consider it to be any different than political junkies like us talking about the kind of person we'd like to see as president.
a pope in catholic doctrine is basically gods representative on earth. so his letter is essentially saying "I want a pope, who as gods representative on earth, will eshew some of the things we have come to know that god has demanded of us"
I find this to be non-sensical, and bordering on doublethink. These types of wishy-washy religious people want to have their cake and eat it to, they want the hug fest and cuddles that religion provides, while turning a blind eye to the other truths of their religious faith.
They are almost openly declaring "I have a hole in my life, and I need to fill it with fluff"
If you are going to water down religion and doctrine to such a point, then why keep it? How weak of a human does one have to be to continue worshipping something that they know in their hearts they know longer agree with or believe in?
And that brings us to my point. When society has grown out of religious doctrine (which many have, whether some want to admit it or not) other are still afraid to shed it from their being.
Stop slowing down progress, stop with people clinging to old rituals that have been diluted beyond meaning.
I want people to be honest. Honest with others, and more importantly, honest with themselves.
I hope we get someone who has dialogued with evangelicals, Muslims and atheists as equals.
It would be nice if he has a few friends who are Protestant clergy and he has come to respect them as intelligent and sincere Christians, every bit as saved as he is.
I hope he has several strong-willed and outspoken biological sisters who have more than a streak of feminism.
Maybe they have told their brother that they use birth control.
Christie you are confused (or rather: willfully ignorant) because you are arbitrarily selecting out sentences that don't have much to do with anything.
Here are some brief examples:
When it comes to belief in god, Muslims and atheists are not equals. Muslims deny the divinity of christ, which is diametrically opposed to catholic doctrine. If you sincerely believe in the christian god, than the spread of the muslim faith results in more and more people being lead astray from the faith and the one true path to heaven. Same thing with atheists.
This is more of the author projecting his own beliefs onto already established doctrine that has lasted for millenia. Protestants categorically reject many notions of the catholic church. They do not see eye to eye on many fundamental issues. Who is to say they are "every bit as saved?"
1 Timothy 2:12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
1 Corinthians 14:34 - "women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."
Ephesians 5:22 - "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord"
The bible.. it seems, isn't very compatible with feminism.
Maybe they have told their brother that they use birth control.
Completely against catholic doctrine. Remember, the pope is god's representative on earth, and thus to reject such doctrine is to reject god's word.
You don't have a legitimate argument because you're confusing opinion about personal characteristics with actual dogma. Furthermore, you're not a Catholic and you don't have a grip on the finer points of the teachings. I don't give a rat's ass if you think religion is fucked up, if Catholics are fucked up, if atheism is the one true belief, blah blah blah. But I find it odd that you're so hell-bent on trying to prove to people that you're right and they're wrong.I'll stop there. Religion in general is fucked up and incompatible with modern society. To hold such views like those in the letter and be a catholic is a practice in doublethink. As I said earlier, it's having your cake and eating it too. These people want all the good stuff religion provides while ignoring all the inconvenient truths.
The Obamessiah position is already filled. The new pope will just have to settle for second best.Out on a limb there? I dont know, Fox is reporting a Mormon is the most likely to win.... in a landslide.
Rove has the Republican Math numbers to prove it....!
The Obamessiah position is already filled. The new pope will just have to settle for second best.
Second best like Savior Rubio, for example.
You're trying to gin up a controversy where none exists and your first sentence is just wrong, to boot. None of these comments, absolutely zero, have to do with what God demands of believers. We've had popes who were parish priest, came from big families, had sisters, suffered from poverty, had humor, and all the rest. You're seem to be tying these normal human events to Catholic dogma and nothing is more nonsensical than that.
I hope we get somebody who has at least some experience as a parish priest.
I hope we get somebody who has not lived exclusively in the world of chancery offices where people give him deference and obedience all the time.
I hope we get someone from a big family, with many brothers and sisters.
I hope he has several strong-willed and outspoken biological sisters who have more than a streak of feminism.
I hope he is a man who has many old friends.
I hope we get somebody who is in touch with his own humanity.
I hope we get a man with a sense of humor.
I hope we get a man who knows what it is like to be poor.
The writer did NOT suggest that the pope change Catholic teaching on marriage, abortion, war, capital punishment, or poverty. He didn't wish for a pope who would disavow the Immaculate Conception, the Trinity, the Bible and sacred tradition, transubstantiation and all the other tenets of the faith. Basically he stated that it would be helpful for a man who is the head of millions of Catholics world-wide actually be a man of the people and not just of Vatican special interests. Why you decided to turn this into a rant about hypocrisy is beyond me. Maybe another poster can explain your position better than you have.
The best Vegas odds are as follows:
(3:1 - Ghana) Peter Turkson
(4:1 - Nigeria) Francis Arinze
(4:1 - Italy) Angelo Scola
No one else appears to come this close.
Benedict stacked the Cardinal pool with conservatives. The new Pope will be Conservative.
Also from a long line of sex offenders?