• 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
DVSentinel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which was also condemned by the Church.

He wasn't excommunicated for having a problem with the selling of indulgences.
 
SBu said:
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.
Click to expand...

Um, no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

In Catholic theology, an indulgence is a remission of temporal[1] punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven.[2][3][4] An indulgence is thus not forgiveness of the guilt of sin nor release from the eternal punishment due to unforgiven mortal sins; nor is it a permit to commit sin, a pardon of future sin, nor a guarantee of salvation for oneself or for another.[2][5] Ordinarily, forgiveness of grave sins is to be obtained only through the sacrament of Confession (i.e., penance or reconciliation).
Click to expand...
 
This is like giving the President the Nobel Peace Prize.
We know how our good Repub friends have overreacted on the President.
aberrant85 said:
Pope Francis has again pushed aside tradition and embraced a progressive outlook, repairing frayed bonds between the Church and gays, atheists, and those who use contraception and have had abortions.

As leader of the Vatican, Pope Francis is not only a religious leader, but Head of State of the small Catholic nation, and can politically and diplomatically intervene in world affairs to promote peace and ethics.

So, with only a few months of experience, how does this Pope rank amongst all others?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/w...l=1&adxnnlx=1379603441-u49LjqOIOSEikXs/MIljqw
Click to expand...
 
th
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Except that you forget that most of our crimes have a victim. Who is the victim in gay marriage? You?
Click to expand...

There are many crimes which don't have a 'victim' per se.

Here is a partial list:

Health ‘protection’ crimes: The government can get away with a lot of restrictions ‘for the good of the people’. This can be used to justify almost any law. \

bullet
Drug prohibition

bullet
Seat belt laws

bullet
Motorcycle helmet laws

bullet
Bans on bungee jumping (or similar activities)

bullet
Suicide and assisted suicide prohibition


“Youth ‘protection’ laws: These laws exist with the pretense of protecting children, but their effect is to make young citizens property of their guardians. Some are also based on the idea that ignorance will protect youth from harm (when it usually has the opposite effect).

bullet
Curfews

bullet
Bans on factual sex education

bullet
Clothing restrictions in schools

bullet
Alcohol & Tobacco prohibition

bullet
Erotica prohibition

bullet
Inability to get credit cards or make legal contracts

bullet
Parental notification


“Paranoid Anti-Crime laws: The government claims the constitution doesn’t give them enough power to fight crime, so they pass laws that directly violate the Bill of Rights.

bullet
Loitering laws

bullet
Confiscation of all possessions without trial (drug laws)

bullet
RICO laws

bullet
[Add the Patriot Act of 2001, following 9-11-2001!]


“Sex prohibition: The government prohibits many forms of sexual expression. These laws usually have no logical reason to exist. They are based solely on religious morality and therefore violate the spirit of our Constitution.

bullet
Inter Net Censorship Laws

bullet
Sodomy laws (consensual oral & anal sex)

bullet
Obscenity laws

bullet
Nudity prohibition

bullet
Prostitution prohibition

bullet
Solicitation laws

bullet
Prosecution of consensual Sado-Masochism

bullet
Abortion restrictions (some religions believe there is a victim)

bullet
Bans on abortion counciling

bullet
Contraceptive restrictions


“Do these belong? There are a number of laws which may or may not be victimless depending on perspective

bullet
Child Porn (prosecutions often happen in cases where no children are harmed)

bullet
Age of consent (forbids children to seek consensual sex with adults)

bullet
Abortion (depending on religious beliefs of whether or not a fetus/embryo is a citizen)

bullet
Gun restrictions (some of these prevent/reduce direct harm to citizens and thus have victims, but if citizens who have legitimate recreational [or protection from their government] uses of guns are refused ownership, there is no victim)

bullet
Paperwork violations (some of these are intended to preemptively prevent fraud or other crimes with victims, but often the paperwork is simply an unnecessary burden)

bullet
Driver licenses (is the driver's test necessary or sufficient to keep streets safe?)

bullet
Business/professional licenses

bullet
Trade/export restrictions

bullet
Minimum wage (what if a retired person wants to do a little work, but doesn't need a lot of money?)

bullet
Traffic regulations (have you ever gone over the speed limit?)
Click to expand...

Victimless Crimes
 
Removable Mind said:
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?
Click to expand...

You might want to take a second look about that statement. Many 'sins' are crimes. And you can lose your assets over them, be jailed for them, and in some states, even be put to death for committing one.
 
radcen said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Bible tells believers not to take other believers to court. It also says not to yoke yourself unequally with the unbeliever. But nowhere does the Bible say we should not have laws and courts. In fact God even supported humans having laws by giving Moses 10 of them to work with. In that day, and in many days forward into history they were enforced in the courts. Most of them still are.

Homosexuality was once considered an illness by the APA. It is the only illness I know that was changed to not being an illness because people lobbied against it. Maybe schizophrenia will be next.
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
The best pope will be the one that sells all of the Vatican's treasures and uses its wealth to feed hungry people all across the world.
Click to expand...

The Catholic church does more to feed hungry people than any other religious organisation.
 
Maenad said:
You might want to take a second look about that statement. Many 'sins' are crimes. And you can lose your assets over them, be jailed for them, and in some states, even be put to death for committing one.
Click to expand...

I completely understood your comment. But my point still stands. What you refer to as sins recognized as crimes would be declared crimes if there were no religious declarations of sin.

Long, long ago, humanity become civilized enough to realize that certain behaviors that are anti-social...which necessitates the creation of laws... to maintain civil order. So if you're trying to say that there is a resemblance of what you've been taught to believe as sins. Most laws that you deem as sins have been around way before western religious teachings existed...in one form or another.

It's not rocket science to know that unchecked killing, stealing, getting caught with the neighbor's spouse...all create social havoc at some level.
 
Removable Mind said:
I completely understood your comment. But my point still stands. What you refer to as sins recognized as crimes would be declared crimes if there were no religious declarations of sin.

Long, long ago, humanity become civilized enough to realize that certain behaviors that are anti-social...which necessitates the creation of laws... to maintain civil order. So if you're trying to say that there is a resemblance of what you've been taught to believe as sins. Most laws that you deem as sins have been around way before western religious teachings existed...in one form or another.

It's not rocket science to know that unchecked killing, stealing, getting caught with the neighbor's spouse...all create social havoc at some level.
Click to expand...

No, it's not, and people have understood that for thousands of years.
But, in modern society, killing and stealing are crimes. Getting caught with the neighbor's spouse may be a sin, but it is not a crime.

Getting killed for being caught with the neighbor's spouse may be a crime, but, that's one committed by the neighbor.
 
phattonez said:
Which was also condemned by the Church.

He wasn't excommunicated for having a problem with the selling of indulgences.
Click to expand...

So it was only for being a "heretic"? What does that really mean? Disagreeing with Rome and the Pope and having the balls to say so?

How many "heretics" were killed during the Inquisition? How many were women and children were raped and killed by the Catholic churches troops during the Crusades? How many converted to Catholicism at the the point of a sword? How many "heretics" did the "Church" kill because the refused to convert? How many rapist, murderers, thieves and others had their "sins cleansed" by serving in the "Churches" armies doing the raping and killing? How many "heretics" died for possessing copies of the Bible in their own languages instead of the Latin version allowed by the church?

How many millions of Catholics today live in abject poverty, which the "church" still collects tithes from, while the Lords of the Church live in opulence that rivals any king or Merchant Prince in history?
 
Dittohead not! said:
No, it's not, and people have understood that for thousands of years.
But, in modern society, killing and stealing are crimes. Getting caught with the neighbor's spouse may be a sin, but it is not a crime.

Getting killed for being caught with the neighbor's spouse may be a crime, but, that's one committed by the neighbor.
Click to expand...

Ditto...NO---WHAT'S NOT?

I was replying to:

Maenad View Post
You might want to take a second look about that statement. Many 'sins' are crimes. Ad you can lose your assets over them, be jailed for them, and in some states, even be put to death for committing one.
Click to expand...

In which said:

I completely understood your comment. But my point still stands. What you refer to as sins recognized as crimes would be declared crimes if there were no religious declarations of sin.

Long, long ago, humanity become civilized enough to realize that certain behaviors that are anti-social...which necessitates the creation of laws... to maintain civil order. So if you're trying to say that there is a resemblance of what you've been taught to believe as sins. Most laws that you deem as sins have been around way before western religious teachings existed...in one form or another.

It's not rocket science to know that unchecked killing, stealing, getting caught with the neighbor's spouse...all create social havoc at some level. These behaviors, by all societies, even thousands of years ago - were seen as some form of crime as opposed to a sin describe by a religion.
Click to expand...

That was my point...people have recognized for thousands of years that specific anti-social behaviors aren't socially healthy...considered them to be crimes...not sins.

Getting caught with the neighbor's spouse can indeed precipitate more violent behaviors ...such as assault or killing. And in some countries even today is consider adultery, punishable by death.

A biblical equivalent in days of old... And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (Lev. 20:10).

I guarantee that way, way, way before biblical times...that was a no-no...and held some form of social punishment.

To be honest, Ditto...I'm still not getting your point...as a reply to my post.
 
SBu said:
Sure you can quote wikipedia... I don't see how that refutes my statement. Yours is a definition, mine is an explanation. Maybe you don't understand the difference?
Click to expand...

Indulgences are for everyone, not just royalty. It's always been that way.
 
DVSentinel said:
So it was only for being a "heretic"? What does that really mean? Disagreeing with Rome and the Pope and having the balls to say so?
Click to expand...

It means professing beliefs that lead souls astray. Protesting indulgences doesn't do that, denying transubstantiation does.

How many "heretics" were killed during the Inquisition?
Click to expand...

Many less than you think.

How many were women and children were raped and killed by the Catholic churches troops during the Crusades? How many converted to Catholicism at the the point of a sword? How many "heretics" did the "Church" kill because the refused to convert?
Click to expand...

You could easily ask those same questions about the Muslim invaders.

How many rapist, murderers, thieves and others had their "sins cleansed" by serving in the "Churches" armies doing the raping and killing? How many "heretics" died for possessing copies of the Bible in their own languages instead of the Latin version allowed by the church?
Click to expand...

No, just quit this urban legend. The Church was not against translating the Bible. They were against INCORRECT translations.

How many millions of Catholics today live in abject poverty, which the "church" still collects tithes from, while the Lords of the Church live in opulence that rivals any king or Merchant Prince in history?
Click to expand...

THERE IS NO TITHING IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Correct, but he still associated with them, did he not?
Click to expand...

What's your point? Gays and atheists are welcomed at Mass. Reception of Communion is a different story.
 
Maenad said:
General interpretation is that it is someone who is unable to procreate due to not being attracted to the opposite sex.
Click to expand...

The "general interpretation" seems not to have anything to do with the actual meaning of the word.
 
Maenad said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, they're not going to enforce your anti-homosexual views, so you might as well get used to it, homie.

Maenad said:
There are many crimes which don't have a 'victim' per se.

Here is a partial list:



Victimless Crimes
Click to expand...
And that's why you want to force your religion on us and harass gays? No thank you, Maenad. Keep your jesus BS to yourself.


Maenad said:
When did the pope say you should harass gays? I must have missed that one.
Click to expand...

You must have reading comprehension issues. I said the pope said no longer should the church harass gays, not that they should. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I can't wait until your bigoted generation dies off, because my generation sees homosexuals as human beings who deserve equal rights. They don't hide behind a ****ty, bigoted book to force their hate on others.
 
Alexander Pope?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Well, they're not going to enforce your anti-homosexual views, so you might as well get used to it, homie.


And that's why you want to force your religion on us and harass gays? No thank you, Maenad. Keep your jesus BS to yourself.





You must have reading comprehension issues. I said the pope said no longer should the church harass gays, not that they should. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I can't wait until your bigoted generation dies off, because my generation sees homosexuals as human beings who deserve equal rights. They don't hide behind a ****ty, bigoted book to force their hate on others.
Click to expand...

You are the one with the comprehension issues. If someone tells says you should 'no longer' do something, obviously they told you to do it to start with. Come on. Now, folks like you don't mind throwing up the Crusades when it suits your fancy, so surely the church, at some point, said to harass gays. Now they are back peddling.

My 'bigoted generation?' Have you ever checked the age of the people who beat gays to a pulp. Not many elderly folk doing that. None that I know of. We are enjoying ourselves.

You have completely missed the issue with gay rights. Or ignored it altogether hoping others will be distracted as well. It's not about love. It's not about religion. It's about money. It is about forming another class to take a larger share of our benefits be they government or private, unless of course you are gay, which is what I suspect. In that case you want a bigger piece of the pie that others have worked for and which was never intended to be for you. In the long run it means those of us who have worked for those benefits will have a smaller share. You have to throw the religion thing in there so it looks like you are on the side of righteousness. No major religion before this day and age, and only a couple of cultures have condoned the gay lifestyle. Even Lot of the Bible offered one of his daughters to men who came to rape a male guest in his house.

“Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof,” (Gen. 19:8).
Click to expand...

As to seeing people as human beings, I'm sure all I have to do is flip over a couple of threads and you will be supporting one modern day religion that will murder you if you are gay. That is how conflicted and inconsistent people like you are on their issues.
 
Last edited:
Maenad said:
You are the one with the comprehension issues. If someone tells says you should 'no longer' do something, obviously they told you to do it to start with. Come on. Now, folks like you don't mind throwing up the Crusades when it suits your fancy, so surely the church, at some point, said to harass gays. Now they are back peddling.

My 'bigoted generations?' Have you ever checked the age of the people who beat gays to a pulp. Not many elderly folk doing that. None that I know of.

You have completely missed the issue with gay rights. It's not about love. It's not about religion. It's about money. It is about forming another class to take a larger share of ourbbenefits be they government or private, unless of course you are gay, which is what I suspect. In that case you want a bigger piece of the pie that others have worked for and which was never intended to be for you. In the long run it means those of us who have worked for those benefits will have a smaller share. You have to throw the religion thing in there so it looks like you are on the side of righteousness. No religion and only a couple of cultures have condoned the gay lifestyle. Even Lot of the Bible offered one of his daughters to men who were came to rape a male guest in his house. I'm sure all I have to do is flip over a couple of threads and you will be supporting one modern day religion that will murder you if you are gay. That is how conflicted and inconsistent people are on their issues.
Click to expand...

Wtf is this? So now you're backtracking and saying it has nothing to do with your religion, just your belief that gays are lesser human beings who don't deserve the same rights you have? Jesus ****ing christ that is one of the most hateful and bigoted things I've ever heard in my life.

Did you just say that because your generation was allowed to harass gays and blacks when you were younger, that bigotry is somehow a young-person thing? Your senile old generation is the driving force behind this type of discrimination and hatred. The world will be far, far better when you're dead and gone.

I will sleep well at night knowing that tolerance is the rule rather than the exception and all you have is bigoted internet ramblings.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Wtf is this? So now you're backtracking and saying it has nothing to do with your religion, just your belief that gays are lesser human beings who don't deserve the same rights you have? Jesus ****ing christ that is one of the most hateful and bigoted things I've ever heard in my life.
Click to expand...

Yeah, mind quoting where he said that gays are lesser human beings? I didn't see that.

And of course this turns into another gay thread.

Did you just say that because your generation was allowed to harass gays and blacks when you were younger, that bigotry is somehow a young-person thing? Your senile old generation is the driving force behind this type of discrimination and hatred. The world will be far, far better when you're dead and gone.

I will sleep well at night knowing that tolerance is the rule rather than the exception and all you have is bigoted internet ramblings.
Click to expand...

Again, where did you read this? He's saying that it is the youth of today that are harassing gays, not the elderly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom