PDA

View Full Version : The next Pope might be African...



Evolved
Monday, July 14th, 2003, 04:20 AM
I read the next Pope might be a black African. My father and his family would become Lutheran if that happens.. :D

Milesian
Monday, July 14th, 2003, 08:17 AM
:D

Phlegethon
Tuesday, July 15th, 2003, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by ladygoeth33
I read the next Pope might be a black African. My father and his family would become Lutheran if that happens.. :D

Some of the most educated, traditionalist and conservative Catholic clergymen are from Africa and Southeast Asia. I don't think picking one of them as a candidate is a sign of political correctness. I'd rather see it as an attempt to steer a corrupted, ecumenical, wishy-washy church back into track, towards its pre-Vaticanum II glory.

Lutherans on the other hand are about the most liberal, "progressive", degenerated denomination in Europe. My paternal family were Pomeranian Old Lutherans, a denomination that has been almost completely wiped out after Poles and Russians stole eastern Germany in 1945. The average age of the last Old Lutheran church community here is 78. Ten more years and they will be gone.

Milesian
Tuesday, July 15th, 2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Phlegethon
Some of the most educated, traditionalist and conservative Catholic clergymen are from Africa and Southeast Asia. I don't think picking one of them as a candidate is a sign of political correctness. I'd rather see it as an attempt to steer a corrupted, ecumenical, wishy-washy church back into track, towards its pre-Vaticanum II glory.


That's heartening to hear, Phlegethon.
I hope your right about that

Tryggvi
Monday, September 1st, 2003, 02:30 AM
Some of the most educated, traditionalist and conservative Catholic clergymen are from Africa and Southeast Asia. I don't think picking one of them as a candidate is a sign of political correctness. I'd rather see it as an attempt to steer a corrupted, ecumenical, wishy-washy church back into track, towards its pre-Vaticanum II glory. Sure, the Negroes will save the Catholic Church and restore its "old glory". :lol

Well, some of them still have first-hand experience in witch hunts, so maybe one can build on that. :)

Phlegethon
Monday, September 1st, 2003, 02:43 AM
Sure, the Negroes will save the Catholic Church and restore its "old glory". :lol

Saint Augustine by nowadays standards would be considered a negro, too. Right now I do not see any change to the better orchestrated by Europeans.


Well, some of them still have first-hand experience in witch hunts, so maybe one can build on that. :)

Maybe they should start hunting trendy white agnostics first. They do more damage than all alleged witches throughout history combined.

Tryggvi
Monday, September 1st, 2003, 08:49 PM
Saint Augustine by nowadays standards would be considered a negro, too. Right now I do not see any change to the better orchestrated by Europeans. Change to "the better"? To which "old glory"? Children's Crusades? Double and triple papacies? Orgies and gluttony? The indulgence? Rectal and vaginal pears? Religious wars, forced conversions, and massacres against heathens and heretics? Censorship and oppression of science? Third world missionarism and the ransacking of pagan cultures? Prohibition of birth control for the colored masses?

http://www.corkscrew-balloon.com/misc/torture/29.jpg
Rectal, oral, or vaginal pear. Its name comes from its shape. This instrument had a screw mechanism by which it was progressively expanded to the maximum aperture of the two or three elements it was made of. This instrument was forced into the mouth or rectum of male victims and into the vagina of female victims. The oral, rectal, or vaginal pear was inflicted on people guilty of sodomy, on women guilty of adultery, people guilty of incest or sexual union with Satan, and it was also inflicted on heretical preachers and blasphemers. This torture has in itself the implicit idea of inflicting punishment that was opposite to the kind of crime one had been charged with.

The history, er, criminal record of this oriental desert religion is long and damning. The destructive effects the secular reflection of its values has on modern Europe might beat all its previous crimes easily, though. Many of the fruits remain still to be reaped in the decades to come.


Maybe they should start hunting trendy white agnostics first. They do more damage than all alleged witches throughout history combined.Trendy white agnostics Ó la Goethe, Mill, Curie, and Mencken did damage only to ignorance and superstitions. But no doubt that Sprenger and de Torquemada would have hunted them down.

Milesian
Monday, September 1st, 2003, 09:19 PM
When I think of the trendy athiestic founders of Communism or the trendy athiestic proponents of the French Revolution and their pseudo-religion of Liberlism, I would have to assent in favour of Phlegethon.

StrÝbog
Monday, September 1st, 2003, 10:06 PM
When I think of the trendy athiestic founders of Communism or the trendy athiestic proponents of the French Revolution and their pseudo-religion of Liberlism, I would have to assent in favour of Phlegethon.

You're creating a false dichotomy between atheistic liberalism and "traditional Catholic values." Both have the blood of millions upon millions on their hands. What about the Albigensians? The 30 Years War? The Crusades that Thorburn brought up? Catholics always tell me that these acts were not in the "true spirit of Catholicism" or that those who committed them were not "real Catholics." The Communists I talk to say the same thing about Stalinist purges and Maoist mass famine. :P Additionally, the Catholics have the added problem that the Pope is "God's representative on Earth," making such papally-sanctioned events difficult to explain away, to say the least. Remember the Avignon papacy? :D At least the Communists can claim human fallibility for their atrocities, rather than the whims of YHWH and his Jew-on-a-stick son. ;)
If the choice comes down to humanistic liberal atheism or traditional Christianity, I choose neither.

Milesian
Monday, September 1st, 2003, 10:34 PM
You're creating a false dichotomy between atheistic liberalism and "traditional Catholic values." Both have the blood of millions upon millions on their hands.
What about the Albigensians?

They were Cathars and I have covered them previously in a post some months ago. Their values included perpetual chastity, commending the abandonment of your spouse, not keeping oaths,collective suicide by starvation (Endura), and absolute fidelity being deeply inculcated (ie brainwashing). They were also violent and for a time were considered a grave threat to Christianity. As you can see, not only the survival of the Catholic Church but most likely our entire race would have been under threat if they had not been nuetralised. Extinction is the logical consequence of their values. Personally, I'm quite happy that they were supressed and even anti-Catholic Protestants have agreed that the Church was right in it's supression of what was the ancient equivalent of today's crazy cults.


The 30 Years War?

Are you suggesting the Catholic Church is solely responsible for this politico-Religious war ? What action was it and the soverigns loyal to it supposed to take?

The Crusades that Thorburn brought up?

Among them the destruction of the numerically superior Turkish fleet and the almost certain prevention of Europe being over-run by the Muslin hordes? The good points are often convieniently overlooked. Our very survival may well be owed to these events


Catholics always tell me that these acts were not in the "true spirit of Catholicism" or that those who committed them were not "real Catholics."

It depends on what specific attributes of what specific events you are reffering to. I don't feel the need to defend anything brought up so far, at least not in general



The Communists I talk to say the same thing about Stalinist purges and Maoist mass famine. :P

So there is some hope for them :D


Additionally, the Catholics have the added problem that the Pope is "God's representative on Earth," making such papally-sanctioned events difficult to explain away, to say the least. Remember the Avignon papacy? :D

But no-one says that the Pope cannot make mistakes (although these mistakes are events not related here). The Pope enjoys infallibilty under only very strict and rare circumstances (which are too long and theologically complicated to go into just now in any detail). He is ultimately human and prone to error like the rest of us.

At least the Communists can claim human fallibility for their atrocities, rather than the whims of YHWH and his Jew-on-a-stick son. ;)

Such provocative and vulgar utterings are beneath you , my friend. You do yourself a great injustice there.

If the choice comes down to humanistic liberal atheism or traditional Christianity, I choose neither.

But the choice you gave yourself was one of the other. There was no third option given to opt out. Okay, I'm being a little facaetious there ;)

Loki
Monday, September 1st, 2003, 11:04 PM
I find this Skadi to be a very interesting and diverse community! :D Different opinions, philosophies and religious ideas. It is enriching.

Milesian
Monday, September 1st, 2003, 11:06 PM
Absolutely, it would be incredibly boring if we all agreed with each other! :)

Evolved
Monday, September 1st, 2003, 11:18 PM
Lets put this God & jesus vs. European Heathenism stuff behind us and become shintoists. Something nice and neutral. :japanese

Milesian
Monday, September 1st, 2003, 11:22 PM
Lets put this God & jesus vs. European Heathenism stuff behind us and become shintoists. Something nice and neutral. :japanese


Never! Confucianism shall triumph over you worthless Shintoists! :tongue

StrÝbog
Monday, September 1st, 2003, 11:40 PM
They were Cathars and I have covered them previously in a post some months ago. Their values included perpetual chastity, commending the abandonment of your spouse, not keeping oaths,collective suicide by starvation (Endura), and absolute fidelity being deeply inculcated (ie brainwashing). They were also violent and for a time were considered a grave threat to Christianity. As you can see, not only the survival of the Catholic Church but most likely our entire race would have been under threat if they had not been nuetralised. Extinction is the logical consequence of their values. Personally, I'm quite happy that they were supressed and even anti-Catholic Protestants have agreed that the Church was right in it's supression of what was the ancient equivalent of today's crazy cults.

Yes, they were Cathars, which meant that they did not accept the barbaric YHWH or Old Testament as valid. They were not threatening anyone, they were a pacifist community dwelling in South-Central France. Virtually all of your information comes from their Inquisitors. I have heard Catholics accuse them of being both licentious and perpetually chaste, so it can't be both... They were slaughtered in cold blood and the remaining few over the next couple centuries were burned at the stake. How long a list do I have to composeof the victims of organized Christianity? Every single 'heresy' has been met with cold-blooded murder. Many of these 'heresies' have been points on which the Church itself was vague or contradictory. You demand that the Pope be granted the capacity for human error, but all the groups you view as misguided should be executed?

Are you suggesting the Catholic Church is solely responsible for this politico-Religious war ? What action was it and the soverigns loyal to it supposed to take?

No, the Protestants are equally to blame. :D

Among them the destruction of the numerically superior Turkish fleet and the almost certain prevention of Europe being over-run by the Muslin hordes? The good points are often convieniently overlooked. Our very survival may well be owed to these events

A war of conquest against the Middle East was not justified, except to those who wanted to "save the Land of Christ from the infidel." Furthermore, most of the conquests bore no religious value, but were power/land grabs by European nobles. Why would Europeans invade Christian Armenia other than to steal the land? :P Why did the Venetians invade and sack Constantinople, one of the few centers of learning during the Dark Ages? Even those ostensibly religious conquests came down to power grabs, such as the competition for "King of Jerusalem."
There was a saying in parts of Europe: "...better the Sultan's turban than the Pope's Mitre!" Many Orthodox Christians in the East felt more assaulted by Catholics than by Muslims.
The threat presented to Europe by Turkish expansion was real. However, instead of preparing to wage a defensive war, most European leaders sought glory for themselves by invading the Middle East, large parts of which were not even under Turkish control.

Tryggvi
Tuesday, September 2nd, 2003, 02:32 AM
When I think of the trendy athiestic founders of Communism or the trendy athiestic proponents of the French Revolution and their pseudo-religion of Liberlism, I would have to assent in favour of Phlegethon.
Not everything that limps is a good comparison: Even if all founders of Communism and all proponents of the French Revolution were atheists (or agnostics), and even if the damage caused by Communism and French Revolution-style Liberalism was comparable to the damage done by Catholicism (or Christianity), not all atheists (or agnostics) are Communists or Liberals, while all Catholics (or Christians) surely are Catholics (or Christians).

Additionally, there are no atheists (or agnostics) who are Catholics (or Christians), but there are tons of "Heart Jesus'" Liberals or Communists.

Stalin was a committed Catholic in his youth (he attented the Tiflis Theological Seminary for six years), and so was Hitler (he died as a Catholic).

The irony of the Catholic faith is that Hitler if he repented will be admitted to heaven, while the gassed six million will burn in hell. :angel

Notwithstanding this regrettable circumstance, I actually like Catholicism a lot. It certainly helps many people to live a good and honorable life, and some of the morally most outstanding human beings I know are Catholics.

I was baptized and confirmed a Catholic and am officially still a member of the Church. If I'd be a Christian with all my heart, I'd definitely be a Catholic. The heretical denominations are if anything not less but more erroneous. But then again, if I had to embrace any of the desert religions I'd be a Muslim.

Factually seen, I am an agnostic, positioned somewhere on the threshold from atheism to theism: I do not know whether there is a god, do not believe the existence of gods can be proven, and although I'd consider it not unlikely that a God (in a wider, non-Christian sense) exists, I do not strictly believe in him. Not all the time anyway, and more with my heart than with my intellect. I do pray, though, occasionally and irregularly.

I do not believe that Jesus was the son of God, or - via the Trinity - God Himself, thus I'm definitely positioned beyond the fold of Christianity. I believe that the universe could be considered the self-realizing Creator, thus I am somehow a Pantheist, too. And a Heathen anyway, as I naturally do embrace some elements of Northvegr and Aryavarta. I do believe in reincarnation, for example, as well as in karma. I do not think there is any religion that would not offer at least some moments or elements I consider truthful and useful.

Tryggvi
Tuesday, September 2nd, 2003, 04:59 AM
Additionally, the Catholics have the added problem that the Pope is "God's representative on Earth," making such papally-sanctioned events difficult to explain away, to say the least. Remember the Avignon papacy? :D

But no-one says that the Pope cannot make mistakes (although these mistakes are events not related here). The Pope enjoys infallibilty under only very strict and rare circumstances (which are too long and theologically complicated to go into just now in any detail). He is ultimately human and prone to error like the rest of us.

At least the Communists can claim human fallibility for their atrocities, rather than the whims of YHWH and his Jew-on-a-stick son. ;)

Such provocative and vulgar utterings are beneath you , my friend. You do yourself a great injustice there.
Here's an excellent elaboration on the frequently misunderstood instrument of Infallibility which, in fact, protects the Church from error:


Papal Infallibility


The Catholic Church's teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in moral unity, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).


Vatican II's Explanation

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter's successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17-19; John 21:15-17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15-17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").


Based on Christ's Mandate

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19-20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope's infallibility. This development of the faithful's understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).


Some Clarifications

An infallible pronouncement-whether made by the pope alone, by an ecumenical council, or by the constant teaching of the Church's magisterium through the centuries-usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined by an official papal statement. There are, in fact, few topics on which it would be possible for a pope to make an infallible decision without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won't sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope's private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do-through study-though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.


Peter Not Infallible?

As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter's conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11-16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter's actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.

Furthermore, the problem was Peter's actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:15-16). The problem was that he wasn't living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.

Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility-they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.

Turning to history, critics of the Church cite certain "errors of the popes." Their argument is really reduced to three cases, those of Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius, the three cases to which all opponents of papal infallibility turn; because they are the only cases that do not collapse as soon as they are mentioned. There is no point in giving the details here-any good history of the Church will supply the facts-but it is enough to note that none of the cases meet the requirements outlined by the description of papal infallibility given at Vatican I (cf. Pastor Aeternus 4).


Their "Favorite Case"

According to Fundamentalist commentators, their best case lies with Pope Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold.

But that's not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, "To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine."

Knox wrote to Arnold Lunn (a future convert who would become a great apologist for the faith-their correspondence is found in the book Difficulties): "Has it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged 'failures of infallibility'? I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, 'Oh, well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time with Nell Gwynn.' Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries-certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!" While Knox's observation does not establish the truth of papal infallibility, it does show that the historical argument against infallibility is weak.

The rejection of papal infallibility by "Bible Christians" stems from their view of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible Church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope.

This is no place to give an elaborate demonstration of the establishment of a visible Church. But it is simple enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master's instructions, a visible organization, and that every Christian writer in the early centuries-in fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation-fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization.

One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

If Christ did set up such an organization, he must have provided for its continuation, for its easy identification (that is, it had to be visible so it could be found), and, since he would be gone from earth, for some method by which it could preserve his teachings intact.

All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through the its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual).

It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.

Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won't "neglect" to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.

But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is the main function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that's why papal infallibility exists.

Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus' Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul's statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God's own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).


Source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Nordhammer
Tuesday, September 2nd, 2003, 08:45 AM
Sure, the Negroes will save the Catholic Church and restore its "old glory". :lol

Well, some of them still have first-hand experience in witch hunts, so maybe one can build on that. :)

That's one of the best replies I've read in a while. It had me laughing out loud! Cheers. :prost

Nordhammer
Tuesday, September 2nd, 2003, 08:47 AM
Some of the most educated, traditionalist and conservative Catholic clergymen are from Africa and Southeast Asia. I don't think picking one of them as a candidate is a sign of political correctness. I'd rather see it as an attempt to steer a corrupted, ecumenical, wishy-washy church back into track, towards its pre-Vaticanum II glory.


So in this case it takes an African soul to heal a sick world. :) He's a soul man! :D

Loki
Tuesday, September 2nd, 2003, 09:06 AM
So in this case it takes an African soul to heal a sick world. :) He's a soul man! :D

Many of the high African clergy are involved in politics, and of course politics with an African bias. Take for example bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa (okay, admittedly he is Anglican), who is probably more of a politician than a clergyman. Then again, the largest part of the church's history involved the state, and the church/state separation only came relatively recently. So church and politics are inextricably linked, it would seem.

cosmocreator
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2003, 04:36 AM
I think we should use one of those on Vanessa to purge her of her evil. Thing is, she'd probably enjoy it.

http://www.corkscrew-balloon.com/misc/torture/29.jpg

StrÝbog
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2003, 04:46 AM
I think we should use one of those on Vanessa to purge her of her evil. Thing is, she'd probably enjoy it.

http://www.corkscrew-balloon.com/misc/torture/29.jpg

Uh... :sick

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2003, 04:53 AM
HAHAHAHAHA cosmo what are you on tonight?!

And what is that thing? I admit I think it looks pretty cool. Though it appears that it would be better at inciting evil rather than purging it!!!

StrÝbog
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2003, 07:12 AM
HAHAHAHAHA cosmo what are you on tonight?!

And what is that thing? I admit I think it looks pretty cool. Though it appears that it would be better at inciting evil rather than purging it!!!

Didn't you read the caption Thorburn posted? It's for forcing into rectal, oral and vaginal openings of people supposedly guilty of sexual sins... :scared

Loki
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2003, 07:39 AM
HAHAHAHAHA cosmo what are you on tonight?!

And what is that thing? I admit I think it looks pretty cool. Though it appears that it would be better at inciting evil rather than purging it!!!

It might look like a dildo Vanessa, but if you have a closer look you'll see a sharp point, the whole thing is made of cold metal (what a turn-on... ) and it could expand laterally to about the same width as its length... now I don't know about your capacity, but this is rather extreme.

:cross

Nordhammer
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2003, 09:13 AM
I think we should use one of those on Vanessa to purge her of her evil. Thing is, she'd probably enjoy it.

http://www.corkscrew-balloon.com/misc/torture/29.jpg

You really have to ask who were the evil ones, the Christians who used that or the victims.

I wonder if those exorcists still use them. :D

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Friday, September 5th, 2003, 03:14 AM
It might look like a dildo Vanessa, but if you have a closer look you'll see a sharp point, the whole thing is made of cold metal (what a turn-on... ) and it could expand laterally to about the same width as its length... now I don't know about your capacity, but this is rather extreme.

:cross

I said it looked cool, not implying I would want to use it :sick (on myself anyway) I can just imagine the sound of hip bones cracking and popping! :thumbup

How could our Lord and savior let such a thing be invented? :[]!!

StrÝbog
Friday, September 5th, 2003, 08:58 AM
How could our Lord and savior let such a thing be invented? :[]!!

Maybe he wanted it used on himself ;)
S&M Jesus!!! "Crucify me, bitch! Unghhh!! Scourge me, scourge me, baby...."

Loki
Friday, September 5th, 2003, 09:08 AM
Maybe he wanted it used on himself ;)
S&M Jesus!!! "Crucify me, bitch! Unghhh!! Scourge me, scourge me, baby...."

Blasphemy!! :grind

Bring on the saw!

http://www.corkscrew-balloon.com/misc/torture/25b.jpg

Gorm the Old
Tuesday, September 7th, 2004, 03:31 PM
Agnosticism is NOT tantamount to atheism as so many seem to think. It is an honest confession of ignorance. It is more honest than faith. Agnostics do not say "I can't prove that this is true, but I want it to be true, therefore I BELIEVE that it is true and will assert it to be true." The agnostic says "I honestly don't know whether this is true or not. Therefore, I have no justification for saying that it is true."
If a Supreme Being exists, think what it is required to do. It has to be the creator and sustainer of the Universe. It has to have established the values of the fundamental physical constants with EXACTLY the values they now have (when they might have had any values whatever). Can you actually conceive of such a being ? Can you actually understand such a being ? I am sure that I can't.
I think that the Supreme Being, if there be such an entity, would be too sublime for human comprehension, that the Supreme Being would be inconceivable and incomprehensible. If so, all human attempts to conceive of the inconceivable or comprehend the incomprehensible are doomed to failure by the limitations of the human intellect.
Men model their images of the inconceivable on the familiar. YHWH is modeled upon the Middle Eastern despots with whom the Jews were familiar. That doesn't make it a valid concept.
As an unashamed agnostic, I'm not going to say that I believe that God is like a white-bearded man on a throne. This is a very naive, childish concept.
Certain lines of reasoning imply that there may well be a Supreme Being. I don't know what this Being is like and I'm not going to speculate on it and then proclaim my speculations and guesses as truth. This kind of honesty is what agnosticism is all about.

Awar
Tuesday, September 7th, 2004, 03:44 PM
I find this Skadi to be a very interesting and diverse community! :D Different opinions, philosophies and religious ideas. It is enriching.

I agree with you there, 2003 Loki. :P

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, September 7th, 2004, 04:43 PM
I always find it interesting when people defend the Cathars. First, the crusade was launched against them because of their violent attacks on representives of the Church. So the Cathars brought that shit upon their own heads.

Second, the Cathars had a very perverted theology claiming that God didnt care if you ****** a Jew or Arab Muslim. Hmmn....so you're defending race-mixing now?

I just even read a book about the Cathars and how Jews were well tolerated and even flourished in areas dominated by the Cathars. It was only untill the Catholic crackdown where Jews put in their proper place.

So as far as Im concern, you defend the Cathars you defend race-mixing and the Jews. Have a nice day people!