• 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!

Do you REALLY care about the next Pope?

How much do you care about who the next Pope is?


  • Total voters
    106
Well, I think they should have elected me. But since they didn't, I guess I will just go forward with my retirement plans!
 
Not all homicides are evil.
Murder is a legal construct. Specifically it is an illegal homicide. You have to accept that the law gets it right 100% of the time to accept that all murders are bad. I'm not to willing give the law that level of infallibility.

Would charitable contributions to an organization that kills innocent people be good?

If the intent is good. If you don't know your money is going to kill people, but you believe that you are giving money charitably for a good cause, then you're doing good.
 
What does sharing farts have to do with morality, and how on earth does that thought cross someone's mind?

It is a humorous way of explaining the falsity of objective morality
 
Hmm? 46 pages? Seems to show that somebody cares.

:doh 61 votes for "I could care less", showing that they care, but could actually care less than they do.
Obviously someone cares.

I think the results stand for it's self.

People care. iLOL
 
Last edited:
If the intent is good. If you don't know your money is going to kill people, but you believe that you are giving money charitably for a good cause, then you're doing good.

So then if the intent is then the charitable contribution is bad is it not?
 
Dropped a word or two. Apologies.

So if the intent of the contributor is evil then the charitable contribution is similarly evil?

No. Nature is incapable of good and evil. Only human beings can act either good or evil.

If the intent of the contributor is evil, then the contributor is acting in an evil way. The end result - what actually happens to that contribution - is actually irrelevant.
 
Like I have said many times..........I don't worship the Church...I worship Jesus Christ and so does every Catholic I know.

Maybe instead of "worshiping" him, you should try to be more like him and follow his actual teachings.
 
Shouldn't matter much to non-Catholics.

Some old guy isn't likely going to fix all the problems or make any significant changes to a church of what hundreds of millions?
 
And when is he going to start turning over pedophile priests to the authorities? Think he's going to break that mold too? Me either.

I know you don't want to miss even an itty-bitty opportunity, but you're a little over-eager here. The man's held the job for only 8 days, LOL. How about you give him, oh, a couple of weeks to, you know, get through Holy Week and set up his household and unpack? ;)

I happen to be optimistic. Saint Francis felt that he had a command from Jesus to clean His house, and perhaps this is one reason Bergoglio chose "Francis" as his name.
 
I know you don't want to miss even an itty-bitty opportunity, but you're a little over-eager here. The man's held the job for only 8 days, LOL. How about you give him, oh, a couple of weeks to, you know, get through Holy Week and set up his household and unpack? ;)

I happen to be optimistic. Saint Francis felt that he had a command from Jesus to clean His house, and perhaps this is one reason Bergoglio chose "Francis" as his name.

I'm sure that when he's been in office for 10 years, we'll still be wondering when he's going to turn over every single last one of the pedophile priests that Benedict left him records on. I hope you're right, I'm just not holding my breath.
 
I'm sure that when he's been in office for 10 years, we'll still be wondering when he's going to turn over every single last one of the pedophile priests that Benedict left him records on. I hope you're right, I'm just not holding my breath.

That's just it--you don't hope I'm right; you fervently hope I'm wrong and have already made up your mind.
 
That's just it--you don't hope I'm right; you fervently hope I'm wrong and have already made up your mind.

I'm going by the track record of past Popes who have known full well about the problem and have pretended it didn't exist. I see no reason to think this guy will be any different. I hope you're right though, although being right will entirely destroy the church financially, although I think that's already a foregone conclusion.
 
Based on average life expectancy statistics...in 10 years..... the current, newly elected pope, won't be pope.

They ought to stop electing old guys.
 
They ought to stop electing old guys.

I'd like to think they're smart enough to not elect a guy who could hold "office" for 40 years, but I'm guessing it's more about making sure the guy they elect is completely under control and not some hip-shooting cowboy that might go all whacky-crazy and say something like: "Condoms are actually very smart things for people to use when they have sex."
 
Back
Top Bottom