• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Best Pope Ever?

Who is the best Pope ever?


  • Total voters
    31
All the pope said was that you shouldn't harass gays anymore. How is that "no longer willing to uphold the teachings of christ". Did christ ever say "Thou shalt have thine government deny rights to sinners that you readily enjoy!"?

Actually Jesus said that 'eunuchs from birth' should not marry.

King James Bible
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Matthew 19:12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should acce

And there were several things Jesus had no tolerance for:

Mark 7:20-23

English Standard Version (ESV)


20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

And when he forgave sin he told those he forgave to go and sin no more:

John 8:11

And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
 
I am not attempting to argue that practice is entirely the same as doctrine, though there are implications abound. Would the establishment of a church doctrine at a much later period suffice for the doctrinal change?

Why would it?
 
Why would it?

If, say, it was disputed that papal infallibility was a legitimate concept prior to the 14th century, couldn't this hold for some interesting discussions on the changes held in the church?
 
Actually Jesus said that 'eunuchs from birth' should not marry.



Matthew 19:12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should acce

And there were several things Jesus had no tolerance for:



And when he forgave sin he told those he forgave to go and sin no more:
Every single one of your examples said absolutely nothing to suggest that you should force your views on anybody, much less have the government enforce your views.

If you want to think they're sinners, then you can do that, but you can't use the government to force them out of that sin.
 
If, say, it was disputed that papal infallibility was a legitimate concept prior to the 14th century, couldn't this hold for some interesting discussions on the changes held in the church?

This seems like a reach.
 
"eunuchs from birth"? How are we to interpret that phrase?

"the poor will be with you always, but I am only here for a little while". Yes, that's true, and the poor are still with us, and no doubt always will be. Living in luxury while ignoring the poor was not what Christ was all about, and the new Pope seems to be not only making mouth noises about it, but also being an example.

Go thy way and sin no more. That must have come to a surprise to people who thought that judging and then carrying out a punishment was the best course of action.

Marriage and children were very important in the Jewish culture, still are. A eunuch from birth would not be attracted to women and would not be able to do those things.
 
Every single one of your examples said absolutely nothing to suggest that you should force your views on anybody, much less have the government enforce your views.

If you want to think they're sinners, then you can do that, but you can't use the government to force them out of that sin.

Au contraire. The government forces people out of their sin every day and puts them in prison for it. Every criminal law we have is designed to force someone out of their sin.
 
Marriage and children were very important in the Jewish culture, still are. A eunuch from birth would not be attracted to women and would not be able to do those things.

Let's see what the word actually means:

eu·nuch noun \ˈyü-nək, -nik\
: a man who has had his sexual organs removed

Full Definition of EUNUCH

1
: a castrated man placed in charge of a harem or employed as a chamberlain in a palace
2
: a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals
3
: one that lacks virility or power <political eunuchs>

So, "eunuch from birth" must mean that the sexual organs were removed en utero, or perhaps it's a reference to #3, someone who lacks power.
 
Au contraire. The government forces people out of their sin every day and puts them in prison for it. Every criminal law we have is designed to force someone out of their sin.

Except that you forget that most of our crimes have a victim. Who is the victim in gay marriage? You?
 
Au contraire. The government forces people out of their sin every day and puts them in prison for it. Every criminal law we have is designed to force someone out of their sin.

If you have ever been witness to a criminal trial, then you are aware that a person is never charged for committing a "sin". They are charged for violating a public law created by moral principles, which are designed to be as unbiased as possible to all those whom the law applies.

Sin? Really? Sin according to who or what?
 
Actually He said, 'the poor will be with us always.'

He also said, 'go thy way and sin no more.'

Reality is that people no longer want to hear what they need to hear. They want to hear what they want to hear. Too bad the church is no longer willing to uphold the teachings of Jesus Christ who said that 'eunuchs from birth' should not marry.
This is what I've been observing in our society of late regarding Jesus and/or religion.

People keep saying that God is a loving and forgiving God, and He is... and that Jesus taught love and forgiveness... and He did... but nowhere did either ever say that that meant a free-for-all was now the rule with no consequences for sinful choices.
 
This is what I've been observing in our society of late regarding Jesus and/or religion.

People keep saying that God is a loving and forgiving God, and He is... and that Jesus taught love and forgiveness... and He did... but nowhere did either ever say that that meant a free-for-all was now the rule with no consequences for sinful choices.
nor did He say that mankind should enforce those consequences.
 
The world still has a Pope?
 
nor did He say that mankind should enforce those consequences.
I guess it depends on how you choose to define "enforce".

I forget exactly where, but I recall the Bible saying that one should try to refrain from associating with known/unrepentant sinners (meaning those who refuse to even consider salvation). That's a form of enforcement.
 
I guess it depends on how you choose to define "enforce".

I forget exactly where, but I recall the Bible saying that one should try to refrain from associating with known/unrepentant sinners (meaning those who refuse to even consider salvation). That's a form of enforcement.

Really? I don't remember that. Jesus seemed to have no problem associating with sinners.
 
Possibly the Apostle Peter. Definitely one back when the Catholic church concerned itself with religious faith instead of political power and influence. So, on between Peter but still back in the dark ages, assuming that the Catholic church ever did concern itself with peoples souls instead of power, wealth and influence.

Martin Luther would be the best pope, but then he pointed out the fallacies of the Catholic Church and was excommunicated and didn't become pope. So the Church continues on it's path of seeking power, wealth and influence and not concerning itself with actual people or their souls.
 
Possibly the Apostle Peter. Definitely one back when the Catholic church concerned itself with religious faith instead of political power and influence. So, on between Peter but still back in the dark ages, assuming that the Catholic church ever did concern itself with peoples souls instead of power, wealth and influence.

Martin Luther would be the best pope, but then he pointed out the fallacies of the Catholic Church and was excommunicated and didn't become pope. So the Church continues on it's path of seeking power, wealth and influence and not concerning itself with actual people or their souls.

Luther was a heretic. He was excommunicated for denying that the Eucharist literally was the Body of Christ and for proclaiming salvation by faith alone.
 
Luther was a heretic. He was excommunicated for denying that the Eucharist literally was the Body of Christ and for proclaiming salvation by faith alone.

I'm pretty sure Lutheran's have a different opinion about that than do Catholics.

Also, he had 95 Theses against the Catholic Church, not just those two. Including the selling of Indulgences.
 
All the pope said was that you shouldn't harass gays anymore. How is that "no longer willing to uphold the teachings of christ". Did christ ever say "Thou shalt have thine government deny rights to sinners that you readily enjoy!"?

When did the pope say you should harass gays? I must have missed that one.
 
"eunuchs from birth"? How are we to interpret that phrase?

"the poor will be with you always, but I am only here for a little while". Yes, that's true, and the poor are still with us, and no doubt always will be. Living in luxury while ignoring the poor was not what Christ was all about, and the new Pope seems to be not only making mouth noises about it, but also being an example.

Go thy way and sin no more. That must have come to a surprise to people who thought that judging and then carrying out a punishment was the best course of action.

If there is any verse in the bible that says Jesus actually gave money to the poor, I don't know what it is. He lived the law and was therefore perfect, so he must have given money to the church. But I know of no instance he gave money to the poor.

And when was the last time YOU took in a homeless person? Don't even bother to answer. You never have.

Jesus told the lame man to take up his bed and walk. He didn't give him money. I think that one is at least worth a try.
 
Last edited:
Every single one of your examples said absolutely nothing to suggest that you should force your views on anybody, much less have the government enforce your views.

If you want to think they're sinners, then you can do that, but you can't use the government to force them out of that sin.

Actually, the government does enforce my views on pretty much every one. It is called the Criminal Code, and is administered by the criminal justice system.
 
I'm pretty sure Lutheran's have a different opinion about that than do Catholics.

Also, he had 95 Theses against the Catholic Church, not just those two. Including the selling of Indulgences.

Agree that there were quite a few more issues than the two mentioned by DVS. Most of the 95 issues have been addressed in the mean time, so not sure what Lutherans' beef now is about. I remember I had a friend at university who was Lutheran. Fresh from a history class about medieval religion in Europe, I asked him if he knew why he was Lutheran and if he had ever read about the 95 theses or Luther. "No," was the response, "my family is Lutheran so I am."

Side note: "Indulgences" were primarily for royals. A way for them to reconcile killing in battle or other sins committed during their divine charge as royalty.
 
Let's see what the word actually means:



So, "eunuch from birth" must mean that the sexual organs were removed en utero, or perhaps it's a reference to #3, someone who lacks power.

General interpretation is that it is someone who is unable to procreate due to not being attracted to the opposite sex.
 
Back
Top Bottom