Pope is/was a Dictator

Voice of Reason wrote:

First: If all people in the world would behave like strict catholics there woul be no Aids in the world. So the popes stance on Condoms only concerns catholics.

His stance should be more like promoting abstinency in that case speaking specially of the African catholics.

Voice of Reason wrote:

Second: if you didnt see anything in Mexico you werent looking closely enough. Believe me we're everywhere and we're helping as much as we can. My Childhood priest for example is currently in Ecuador building a school, hospital and new church from funds from austria.

Such things make from few to no difference. It's matter of really attacing the roots of a certain problem rather than just cutting its leaves or branches. Vatican's stance damages much more than the benefits its few paliatives give to society.

Voice of reason wrote:

Third: The church is just good at economics, if you buy a new BMW it will last 20 years until you need replacement. Buy an old car it will brake down soon.

They could buy a much cheaper Nissan van that would last as well 15 to 20 years. The thing is they spend on luxury.

Voice of Reason wrote:

Forth there are 10 Million priests in the world. that some are misbehaving has to be expected

Yes, and the church deffending them, too. However, it's not only priests that misbehave but also popes. The history of the Vatican is full with pederast, sadistic, bisexual, pervert, incestuous and proilific popes, with greedy and murderous popes. Full of incongruent "representatives of Peter".

There were hard times when rome was under pressure.
But everytime there was a bad pope there would follow a good one.
And speaking of Luxury areyou living in the streets eating out of dustbins.
I dont think so
I dont know what upsets you so against the church, but somehow I think youre leading an atheist cusade instead of arguing for better conditions.
I havent heard you giving any kind of advice, you just bark around.
I cannot argue on non fact reasons so I will have to stop here.
sorry

Voice of Reason wrote:

There were hard times when rome was under pressure.
But everytime there was a bad pope there would follow a good one.

Really? What makes a pope "good" or "bad"? It was all part of the same organization.

Voice of Reason wrote:

And speaking of Luxury areyou living in the streets eating out of dustbins.
I dont think so

In which way does that prove your point? Catholicism theoretically advocvated for humblety, however many of its priests enjoy of great luxury on the expense of others' faith.

Voice of Reason wrote:

I dont know what upsets you so against the church, but somehow I think youre leading an atheist cusade instead of arguing for better conditions.

Attacking the catholic church does not mean being atheist or even anti-catholic. I'm not even attacking the existance of god something atheists do. I'm merely attacking the catholic church because this thread is precisely on arguing about it.
I have posted elsewhere in this site several views on what I think is good for humanity and what better conditions are for me and the way to achieve them. This is simply not the place. But well, now that you insist, I'll summarize:
1. People should work for love to the work they perform, for the wellbeing of humanity and their environment and responsability towards others. If you're an engineer be an engineer because you love engineering, want to benefit society with your knowledges and find satisfaction in seeing the succesful product of your work. If you're a doctor be a doctor for love to medicine, because you want to save others lives or improve their physical integrity, find satisfaction on the success of your labour.
2. Production should be managed fully by state having the only aim to cover societal needs thus producing enough and distributing it so that everyone will have according to her/his needs.
3. Laws should be clear, objective and specific.
4. Land has no individual owner, a certain surface should be assigned per individual being but land as a whole hast to be managed by all through state.
5. Every governmental disposition, when being disagreed upon, should be objectively questioned taking into account the objectives of the communist society.
6. Religion as a personal or congregational aglomeration of beliefs and faith should be respected and allowed as long as its principles, put into practice, do not negatively intervene with the objectives of communism (i.e ammassing material wealth, promoting discrimination, excertion of power, promotion of social inequalty[serfdom, slavery, social stratificaton], promotion of sexism[superiority of men over women or viceversa]) and if so it did censoring or repressing specifically those counter-communist practices but not wholly abolishing that religion. Church should be abolished as an institution that may aglomerate power, and "priest" status shall not be considered a job. Temples are to be respected as places where people practice their faith and should be given manteinance by State just as with any other building.

Voice of Reason wrote:

I havent heard you giving any kind of advice, you just bark around.

As I told you this thread was mainly intended as a discussion on the quality of the pope as an emperor or dictator and thus discussing about the Vatican and catholicism. Ane even so you're wrong, let me cite some adivicing:

ZealotKommunizma wrote:

His stance should be more like promoting abstinency in that case speaking specially of the African catholics.

ZealotKommunizma wrote:

It's matter of really attacking the roots of a certain problem rather than just cutting its leaves or branches.

This is advice and suggesting.
I haven't read any kind of advice from your part either, just plain deffense of the Vatican.
"Barking" is the sound emmited by dogs for what I assume that you imply that I have been making senseless probably agressive posting that contributes nothing to discussion

Voice of Reason wrote:

I cannot argue on non fact reasons so I will have to stop here.
sorry

What did you precisely mean by that? Probably that none of my arguements were based on factual information and thus can be regarded as non-valuable arguements? If so, you're pretty wrong and let me show you why:

Arguement 1: Church takes money from donations thus exploiting people's faith expending lots of that on the manteinance of their power, maintaing their infrastructure, spend on their luxuries, on the deffense of pederast priests, on papal trips, on Vatican security, on institutional manteinance. - All of that is truth so its factual.
Arguement 2: Church verbally advocates for humblety but at the same time spends money on luxuries. That makes church incongruent. - That is also truth so it's factual.
Arguement 3: Catholicism advocates for abstinence in priests, for heterosexuality and for sexual intercourse merely as a means of reproduction. Several Popes and priests have been engaged in acts of: pederasty, homosexuality, rapism, heterosexual sexual intercourse, sadism and sodomy. - That is truth so it's factual.
Arguement 4: Based on Arguement 3, several popes and priests have been incongruent, contradictory catholics. - Since Arguement 3 is true this arguement is also true so it's factual.


Notice please that I'm not even attacking catholic faith but only church. I'm not questioning God's existance, nor Christ's existance, nor Holy Spirit's existance. I'm not even questioning the validity of the Evangelic texts, I'm not questioning catholic principles here. I'm merely questioning that power-amassing faith-exploitating entity called "Roman Catholic Church".

the catholic church isn't the same today as it was 600 years ago it has adobded(soz) a new way it need those billions of euros to buld new chuces mantanens and food for nuns and preists

mattabesta wrote:

the catholic church isn't the same today as it was 600 years ago it has adobded(soz) a new way it need those billions of euros to buld new chuces mantanens and food for nuns and preists

"Adopted" you meant.

It has adopted a new way... hmm... what's that way? Producing something instead of just exploiting people's faith and serving as a nucleus of political power?

eh. Im glad the US has become preaty much secular or atleast not Catholic because that sect of Christianity is crazy and in my opinion just a big cult because they worship mary over jesus...freaks

Quote :

eh. Im glad the US has become preaty much secular or atleast not Catholic because that sect of Christianity is crazy and in my opinion just a big cult because they worship mary over jesus...freaks

Your kinding me right?, Catholics say this : There is one god?(in three persons:God,Son of God,and Holy spirit).They do not worship Mary,they respect her as a woman who give birth for Jesus.

comiescums wrote:

Your kinding me right?, Catholics say this : There is one god?(in three persons:God,Son of God,and Holy spirit).They do not worship Mary,they respect her as a woman who give birth for Jesus.

I live in Mexico, the 2nd most populated catholic country and I can really say that they worship mary from equally to more than Jesus Christ...
Either way I don't care if they worship a flying panda with eleven eyes, as long as they don't have an institution that amasses power through faith, everyting's ok.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I live in Mexico, the 2nd most populated catholic country and I can really say that they worship mary from equally to more than Jesus Christ...
Either way I don't care if they worship a flying panda with eleven eyes, as long as they don't have an institution that amasses power through faith, everyting's ok.

Dude i'm catholic i know whant i believe or should believe...

comiescums wrote:

Dude i'm catholic i know whant i believe or should believe...

And I didn't say anything that opposes that, did I?

What I said is that I don't care what you believe in as long as it doesn't enrich that institution.

Quote :

And I didn't say anything that opposes that, did I?

You say , that mary is worshiped so you oppose...?!

comiescums wrote:

You say , that mary is worshiped so you oppose...?!

Are you implying that by saying "Mary is worshipped" I am describing what you believe or should believe?

No. I just said that Mexican catholics, which represent an important percentage of all the catholics around the world, worship Mary as much or even more than Jesus. By saying that, which is true, I'm not implying that all catholics are or should be that way. And I also said it was not important for me as long as they wouldn't mean profit for the catholic church.

I should add to my introduction that I'm a hardcore catholic, so could please someone who lives in the USA kick Diogritors derriere!
Excuse my french, but this has to be said.

"kicks Diogritor virtually into the derriere"

HAh.

Voice of Reason wrote:

I should add to my introduction that I'm a hardcore catholic, so could please someone who lives in the USA kick Diogritors derriere!
Excuse my french, but this has to be said.

"kicks Diogritor virtually into the derriere"

HAh.

care to explain your opinion? you do not think that your sect of Christianity puts mary higher then she should be and makes the church very political?

Voice of Reason wrote:

name me a country where the curch doesnt pay taxes

U.S and iceland

Jesus once said that wealth was a sin and for a rich man to get into hevean was like a camel to get through the hope of a neddle so that means that the church itself should not exist.

Mr.fredy5 wrote:

Jesus once said that wealth was a sin and for a rich man to get into hevean was like a camel to get through the hope of a neddle so that means that the church itself should not exist.

you've read the bibel?
I am lerning for my konfirmation and i know that none of the things in the bibel are actully writen by jesus and theyer liability is very littel.
religion must adjust to the now and we must remember thet the bibel was writt 1900 year's ago, savery was evrywere and gay's were killed like beasts

It is not in all copies of the bibel but he still showed himself against wealth any way the bibel is not the word of god all the new testament is is 4 guys who wrote about Jesus and only two of them where apposols and those four where choosen by the papacy. The old testament was just stories that acumalated from the word of man. The bibel is the product oif man and not that of a god. It is said that god based man (and woman) of himself in witch case 2000 years of unhindered worship would make any man corrupt, lazy and quick to temper these are not the trets that we should follow a god by. Read the his dark material books (now a film the pope went against supprise supprise ) And you will see a different side to god in witch common sence and thought out resoning does not mean he does not exist just that he is not a great being .

Mr.fredy5 wrote:

It is not in all copies of the bibel but he still showed himself against wealth any way the bibel is not the word of god all the new testament is is 4 guys who wrote about Jesus and only two of them where apposols and those four where choosen by the papacy. The old testament was just stories that acumalated from the word of man. The bibel is the product oif man and not that of a god. It is said that god based man (and woman) of himself in witch case 2000 years of unhindered worship would make any man corrupt, lazy and quick to temper these are not the trets that we should follow a god by. Read the his dark material books (now a film the pope went against supprise supprise ) And you will see a different side to god in witch common sence and thought out resoning does not mean he does not exist just that he is not a great being .

they were simly th only ones that the common pepole could read they were the only ones written in latin.

mattabesta wrote:

Mr.fredy5 wrote:

It is not in all copies of the bibel but he still showed himself against wealth any way the bibel is not the word of god all the new testament is is 4 guys who wrote about Jesus and only two of them where apposols and those four where choosen by the papacy. The old testament was just stories that acumalated from the word of man. The bibel is the product oif man and not that of a god. It is said that god based man (and woman) of himself in witch case 2000 years of unhindered worship would make any man corrupt, lazy and quick to temper these are not the trets that we should follow a god by. Read the his dark material books (now a film the pope went against supprise supprise ) And you will see a different side to god in witch common sence and thought out resoning does not mean he does not exist just that he is not a great being .

they were simly th only ones that the common pepole could read they were the only ones written in latin.

And so not the word of god but of man.

Mr.fredy5 wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

Mr.fredy5 wrote:

It is not in all copies of the bibel but he still showed himself against wealth any way the bibel is not the word of god all the new testament is is 4 guys who wrote about Jesus and only two of them where apposols and those four where choosen by the papacy. The old testament was just stories that acumalated from the word of man. The bibel is the product oif man and not that of a god. It is said that god based man (and woman) of himself in witch case 2000 years of unhindered worship would make any man corrupt, lazy and quick to temper these are not the trets that we should follow a god by. Read the his dark material books (now a film the pope went against supprise supprise ) And you will see a different side to god in witch common sence and thought out resoning does not mean he does not exist just that he is not a great being .

they were simly th only ones that the common pepole could read they were the only ones written in latin.

And so not the word of god but of man.

yeah of corse it wusn´t god how said what is written in the bibel it was jesus and his companions.
p.s the new textament includes a LOT more than just the gosbels

But jesus didn't write the new testament it was made after his death.I know the new testament contains more then the gospel. Even then most of it was sellected after the death of Jesus and so could have easyly been two drunk priests having a laugh late in the night then when they woke up in the morning found a misterious scroll on the ground having a story of the past of it. We can not really on the bibel to show us how todo right.

Mr.fredy5 wrote:

But jesus didn't write the new testament it was made after his death.I know the new testament contains more then the gospel. Even then most of it was sellected after the death of Jesus and so could have easyly been two drunk priests having a laugh late in the night then when they woke up in the morning found a misterious scroll on the ground having a story of the past of it. We can not really on the bibel to show us how todo right.

it was written abour 25 ear after his death lots of books about alexander the gr8 exist and he was alive 2332 years ago

Yes but alexander could do great prophet skills and even that it does not say any thing about his death so no one knows how he died (big piece missing there)

Jesus never condemned rich people he just said that money makes it harder to be a good person. He ate once with a rich man and didn't command him to give away all his property, only to pay back those whom he charged to much.
Also the church (I'm talking about the catholic one) itself is not rich. Neither is the pope, nor most of the clerics. All the income by church taxes and property rights is either used for restauration, Salary or humanitarian projects.
The church is an institution, made up of every single being it hosts.

The Gospels were written between 70-100 AD, Markus being the original one. We believe that none of the authors were apostles, but namesakes documenting the Teaching of the Apostles. Written in Hebrew(for Jews, Markus and John) and ancient Greek (for Pagans, Lukas and Matthew) these four were the most common Gospels used until the 3rd century when a council decided that these four Gospels were the true word of our lord.
Before anyone asks: There is a Gospel of MaryMagdalene, but it was written in the 6th century probably by the cainite sect.

Man was created in the image of God not as God. We just look like him, so to say. God is perfect and pure and by no means just 2000 years can change him.

Honestly, if you take "His Dark Materials" as the book you want to judge our faith on, I would recommend you not to discuss this topic. Or you could ask yourself what faith old Dumbledore followed and critisize that one, I bet it has unicorns in it (With long thick horns). ;-)