The Pope


(I...I...Idiot) #1


(Mickey13) #2

… .


(scherpschutter) #3

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Pope dot :stuck_out_tongue: ? (Or Hope Pope comes?)

To add a serious comment:

He was supposed to be a

a) very conservative, and

b) very intellectual pope
(so not the type who would kiss the ground, but a person who spent most of his life studying the faith and its relevance to modern society and would have to say some serious things about it)

I think he was both, conservative and intellectual, but he showed too much of the first, and not enough of the second quality

I must say his decision to step back, seems to me a sign that he still has a clear mind and doesn’t stick to his position as tight as some (many) thought he would do.

(I was born a catholic, but I lost my faith at the age of about 12)


(ENNIOO) #4

Never been a religious man myself so see no point of the pope, but people who do believe their should be a pope is also fine with me.


(I...I...Idiot) #5

Like the man/ideas or not, this was kind of a big deal.


(Col. Douglas Mortimer) #6

I hereby nominate Bill Maher as his replacement.


(John Welles) #7

It’s quite strange to be honest. I must admit before yesterday I didn’t even know you could resign being a Pope. I always thought it was a life position once attained. Apparently only one other Pope has ever resigned before. History has been made! I can’t speak much about his achievements because a) when he became Pope, all everyone did was concentrate on the fact that he had been once part of the Hitler Youth and subsequently b) his landmark papal visit to Britain where he met another head of a religion, Queen Elizabeth II. I wonder why he has taken this move. Ill health has been cited as the cause, but I would take that with a pinch of salt as that is the reason for every high-profile resignation of the best six decades or more. Perhaps he was forced out in a shift in papal politics - the church has undergone a lot of scandals in recent years, both financially and morally, so perhaps it was thought that he just wasn’t the inspiring figurehead that is seen to be needed. Maybe he has taken the right decision and if truly was his take and not made for him, then my respect has increased for the man at least, that he wasn’t obsessed with hanging onto power. Question is, from a theological standpoint, how can God’s Representative on Earth stop being it? I wasn’t born a Catholic, so perhaps someone can help me out with that conundrum; does this mean God made the wrong choice? Paradox!


(Stanton) #8

Not the 2nd but the 4th who resigned. the first since the 13th century.

The pope is probably one of the most useless and overpaid jobs ever. The Catholic church e.g. spends enormous sums of money alone for protecting his life while, while at the same time many of the church’s sheeps starve to death.

For people outside the Catholic church the pope is some kind of bad joke. For members he seems to have a strong spiritual meaning.


(John Welles) #9

The 4th!?! That’s a worst track record than the British monarcy! ;D

Useless? Not for the billions of Christians around the world who he provides guidence, both spiritually and in every day life. The position is massively influential and I think we all should care who he is and what he does because his influence is a lot more than many heads of state.

The Catholic church e.g. spends enormous sums of money alone for protecting his life while, while at the same time many of the church's sheeps starve to death.
Yet surely this is true for any leader? Just look at all the security for a U.S. President.

(kit saginaw) #10

He just wants to retire and still do stuff, at 85. They gotta pick a younger Pope this time.


(scherpschutter) #11
For people outside the Catholic church the pope is some kind of bad joke. For members he seems to have a strong spiritual meaning.

Well, being God’s representative on earth, he’s the sine qua non of the Catholic Church. Peter (Petrus) was the first symbolic pope, chosen by Jesus as his successor, the rock that served as the base for the church, that also the one who received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. This idea goes back to the Gospel according to Matthew. To Catholics it means they are the only true church and that salvation through Jesus Christ is only possible thanks to the church.

This is the text, with official comments:

Matthew 16:18-19

New International Version (NIV)

[size=12pt]18 And I tell you that you are Peter,(a) and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades (b) will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be © bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be (d) loosed in heaven.”[/size]

Footnotes:
a.Matthew 16:18 The Greek word for Peter means rock.
b.Matthew 16:18 That is, the realm of the dead
c.Matthew 16:19 Or will have been
d.Matthew 16:19 Or will have been


(ENNIOO) #12

Fascinates me people actually believe all that.


(Mickey13) #13

People have got to believe in something like “Holy Church”…

Personally, I still believe in the existence of God, but… ehm… sorry, not in the “Holy Church”. :wink:

Apparently they don’t seem to have enough activities and interests… so why not to go to a church… ::slight_smile:

I like what Voltaire once said (the guy was a prick, but not an idiot):

“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him”

At least some part of society obeys the law for fear that they are punished after their death. A good way of manipulation.

@ Col. Douglas Mortimer

I vote for Bill Murray. :wink:


(scherpschutter) #14

“Fascinates me people actually believe all that.”

I have asked myself this question (How on earth can people believe all this?) ever since I lost my religion. I’ve read various explanations, but none of them seems to have the full answer.


(Mickey13) #15

Well, a lot of people are afraid of the death and they don’t want to come to terms with the fact that there might be simply nothing after the life… maybe on account of this.


(Col. Douglas Mortimer) #16

I’m an agnostic, but only because it is impossible to tell either way for sure whether god exists or not. But I tend to veer towards the side of the atheists because at least, from a pure scientific evidence standpoint, the evidence against the existence of god is stronger than the evidence for the existence of god.

Certainly I do not believe in the type of god espoused by most religions, that of a sentient all benevelant creator who listens to our prayers, decides whether we go to heaven or hell, or gives a fuck whether we worship him on sundays or not. I instead am open to the existence of a “God of Spinoza”, not a deity per se, but something that is one with nature and the universe.

I will not deny however that Religion does and can serve a useful purpose for humanity. Perhaps a misguided purpose but it is as people’s natural inclination to desire to believe in something.

Religion was used for many purposes, bring legitimacy to the monarch, manipulate and pacify the people, bring a sense of purpose to once’s life, help explain things that were not yet explained by science, and as Mickey says to provide some moral compass and subsequent reward for the afterlife. All of this was man-made of course. God exists more in our brains than anything else!

I also fully except that there is nothing after we die. Instead of complaining that we don’t get anything afterwards, we should instead be thankful for the little time we do have, and its all the more reason to live your life to the fullest.


(I love you M.E. Kay) #17

On the topic of religions, I always wondered how can one be sure he believes in the right one. Maybe most of your ancestors believed in the same religion, but then again most of someone else’s ancestors believed in another religion, it doesn’t mean jack. Just for Abrahamic religions you have at least Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Bahá’í Faith, one chance out of four of not going to hell, I don’t like those odds. :stuck_out_tongue:


(Col. Douglas Mortimer) #18

Yeah thats another thing I don’t like about religion. What kind of asshole of a god would send people to hell just for not believing in him? lol Talk about insecure and narcissistic.

I don’t need a god to tell me whats right and wrong. I do right, not because god told me to, and not because it would increase my chances of getting entrance into heaven, but because its the right thing to do. I live my life ethically and morally better than 90 percent of people who follow religion because I don’t need any ulterior motive for being a good person. Just being good is enough motivation for me.


(I love you M.E. Kay) #19

[quote=“Col. Douglas Mortimer, post:18, topic:3164”]Yeah thats another thing I don’t like about religion. What kind of asshole of a god would send people to hell just for not believing in him? lol Talk about insecure and narcissistic.

I don’t need a god to tell me whats right and wrong. I do right, not because god told me to, and not because it would increase my chances of getting entrance into heaven, but because its the right thing to do. I live my life ethically and morally better than 90 percent of people who follow religion because I don’t need any ulterior motive for being a good person. Just being good is enough motivation for me.[/quote]

Totally agree. When some religious people say things like “how can atheists and agnostics be ‘moral’ persons when they don’t believe”, I think it says way more about them than anybody else. They’re basically saying that without the whip or the carrot, they’d be shitty persons. I remember reading some magazine while waiting for the doc once, in it one guy argued that true “saints” we’re atheist who did volunteering and humanitarian work, sounds about right.


(Yodlaf Peterson) #20

He thought he would have had it made being the Pope but then realised he had so much work to do and places to visit he had no time for liaisons with altar boys ;D