# New Pope



## Gryphoneer (Mar 13, 2013)

So, we've got a new pope.

Yay?


----------



## Gryphoneer (Mar 13, 2013)

*Re: Habemus Theocratic Dictator!*

Yeah, it's Francis I AKA Jorge Mario Bergoglio, former Archbishop of Buenos Aires and first non-European/America-born/Jesuit pope. Apparently favorite of the liberal faction (as liberal as the Conclave gets, in any case).

Welp.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 13, 2013)

*Re: Habemus Theocratic Dictator!*



Gryphoneer said:


> Yeah, it's Francis I AKA Jorge Mario Bergoglio, former Archbishop of Buenos Aires and first non-European/America-born/Jesuit pope. Apparently favorite of the liberal faction (as liberal as the Conclave gets, in any case).
> 
> Welp.


Where does he stand on certain topics?


----------



## Bliss (Mar 13, 2013)

*Re: Habemus Theocratic Dictator!*

They probably figured Europe was a lost cause. At least he is liberal with his regnal name. :U


----------



## Hinalle K. (Mar 13, 2013)

*Re: Habemus Theocratic Dictator!*

who cares


----------



## PsychicOtter (Mar 13, 2013)

*Re: Habemus Theocratic Dictator!*

He's conservative when it comes to gay marriage and abortion, but that's almost a given when it comes to cardinals.  I was hoping for Ouellet from Canada, but I won't judge this guy until we see him in the Papacy.


----------



## Corto (Mar 13, 2013)

*Re: Habemus Theocratic Dictator!*

It's nice how we add a rule on insulting beliefs and this shit pops out. I'm changing the thread title because a new pope is not a free shot at insulting an entire religion, be glad I'm not infracting you. 

I don't want any comments on this, and whoever derails the thread by mentioning my edit (be it to insult me, to apologize for the thread title, to discuss how technically he is a dictator in the sense of old Rome and I'm a naive idiot while looking all smug because of how clever you are, I don't give a shit) gets his replies deleted, and an infraction.

This thread is about the new pope. Talk about his policies, why he should/shouldn't have been chosen, how terrible he is, etc etc) but mind at least pretending to be respectful toward other people's religions.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 13, 2013)

*Re: Habemus Theocratic Dictator!*



Corto said:


> but mind at least pretending to be respectful toward other people's religions.



*Tolerant, not respectful. Respect is earned and I don't think that religion, or atheism or any other philosophical concept for that matter, deserve any kind of respect. People who try their hardest to make the world a better place are those who deserve our respect.

Anyway, we are talking about a guy here who tried everything to stop gay marriage to be legalized in his region. What a shocker! >__>
Nothing will change with this guy. At all.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 13, 2013)

I recall watching a clip of the election processes and the bbc were  interviewing someone over the spiritual significance of a bird sitting  on the chimney, which gave me a chuckle. 

I was pleasantly surprised that a south american pope was elected. I guess whether this actually changes anything remains to be seen.


----------



## Kangamutt (Mar 13, 2013)

*Re: Habemus Theocratic Dictator!*



CaptainCool said:


> Anyway, we are talking about a guy here who tried everything to stop gay marriage to be legalized in his region. What a shocker! >__>
> Nothing will change with this guy. At all.



I'm at least hoping he'll do something about the abuse scandals that have been plaguing the church. That shit needs to stop.


----------



## Zerig (Mar 13, 2013)

I've been lied to. I will never trust the internet again


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 13, 2013)

*Re: Habemus Theocratic Dictator!*



Kangaroo_Boy said:


> I'm at least hoping he'll do something about the abuse scandals that have been plaguing the church. That shit needs to stop.



The legal age of a kid so that you can screw it is 12 in the vatican  I don't think this is ever going to change.


----------



## Kosdu (Mar 13, 2013)

Well, atleast he isn't white.


Edit:

Awww, shit. He's white.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 13, 2013)

*Re: Habemus Theocratic Dictator!*



CaptainCool said:


> The legal age of a kid so that you can screw it is 12 in the vatican  I don't think this is ever going to change.



I went to the vatican when I was 12. Sheesh that means I was legal. e_O

Perhaps updating that so it is 16, and matches the rest of italy, would be a symbol step. 

Also, my dad said the new pope was Berlusconi, with the other pope's name beginning with 'ber' I almost had to double check.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 13, 2013)

*Re: Habemus Theocratic Dictator!*



Fallowfox said:


> I went to the vatican when I was 12. Sheesh that means I was legal. e_O
> 
> Perhaps updating that so it is 16, and matches the rest of italy, would be a symbol step.
> 
> Also, my dad said the new pope was Berlusconi, with the other pope's name beginning with 'ber' I almost had to double check.



http://autoimg.clipfish.de/autoimg/095a0a6dbcb2487cb973b476171f6ae2/512x288/berlusconi-for-papst.jpg

12 really is crazy. If they do want to set a symbol for change then that is the first thing they have to fix.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 13, 2013)

Hopefully this is not a double post. 
I am told he has a master's in chemistry and supports contraception.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 13, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Hopefully this is not a double post.
> I am told he has a master's in chemistry and supports contraception.



Nope! He opposed the efforts of Cristina FernÃ¡ndez de Kirchner, the president of Argentinia, to distribute free contraceptives.
He sees same sex marriage as "a scheme to destroy Godâ€™s plan" and doesn't like the "culture of death" behind abortion.
He is a complete loon in my opinion. We are in for some annoyingly stupid years I suppose >__>

Edit: Oh he also called same-sex adoption a "form of discrimination against children".
Have a source for what I said above as well: http://www.mediaite.com/online/pope...abortion-contraception-and-same-sex-adoption/


----------



## Gryphoneer (Mar 13, 2013)

But anyway, talking heads said he's a frugal, restrained person that helped the poor back in Argentina. Maybe he's not gonna lead the church into the 20th century, but that means he won't squander or hoard its money as bad as his predecessors. Hopefully.


----------



## Aetius (Mar 13, 2013)

Inb4 he declares a crusade to take back the Falklands


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 13, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Edit: Oh he also called same-sex adoption a "form of discrimination against children".


Those words don't even mean anything. How do you even go about linking _adoption_ with _discrimination against all children_. I don't understaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Mar 13, 2013)

*Re: Habemus Theocratic Dictator!*



Kangaroo_Boy said:


> I'm at least hoping he'll do something about the abuse scandals that have been plaguing the church. That shit needs to stop.


Hope he is liberal enough for that.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Mar 13, 2013)

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!"


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Mar 13, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Nope! He opposed the efforts of Cristina  FernÃ¡ndez de Kirchner, the president of Argentinia, to distribute free  contraceptives.
> He sees same sex marriage as "a scheme to destroy Godâ€™s plan" and doesn't like the "culture of death" behind abortion.
> He is a complete loon in my opinion. We are in for some annoyingly stupid years I suppose >__>
> 
> ...



Oooooooooooooooooooooh *FU#Â§!*


----------



## Troj (Mar 13, 2013)

Jesuits are (relatively) liberal (all things considered), and I was really concerned about some the possible choices from Africa (read: kill the gays), so we'll see what happens, I suppose.

In particular, we'll see if the Church and the new Pope are going to strive to be like young bamboo in the face of growing criticism, or old oaks. Ratzinger was definitely a turn in the "old oaks" direction.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 13, 2013)

Kazooie said:


> Those words don't even mean anything. How do you even go about linking _adoption_ with _discrimination against all children_. I don't understaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa



I know right? He is essentially saying that staying in an old and rotting orphanage or even on the freaking street is better than living with a gay person/couple!
As I said above, he definitely is a loonatic. There is just no other way.


----------



## Mikhal18 (Mar 13, 2013)

So, basically, the world stays the same.
Christians have a new "Don".

All the popes will forever be the same. The Vatican has huge amounts of gold and other valuables (it's a rumor, I haven't seen them fyi :V), yet, they want people to donate. Seems reasonable. Why not spreading the whole fortune throughout their "Faithful mob",especially the ones that need the most? - oops I went there. >_>"

As for the SameSex Marriage... Well. Christian Churches won't do them? Ok. Others will be glad to be paid to do such... Eitherway, they can't stop people to sign their marital papers anyway...

EDIT: Forgot the Adoption from Homossexual Couples:
Having 2 fathers or 2 mothers, still is better than starving, living in a rottin' place... 
And even though it was proven that homossexual parenting is the same thing as heterossexual parenting. No problems whatsoever...


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 13, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Nope! He opposed the efforts of Cristina FernÃ¡ndez de Kirchner, the president of Argentinia, to distribute free contraceptives.
> He sees same sex marriage as "a scheme to destroy Godâ€™s plan" and doesn't like the "culture of death" behind abortion.
> He is a complete loon in my opinion. We are in for some annoyingly stupid years I suppose >__>
> 
> ...


So new pope, same ideals as the last one?


----------



## Kangamutt (Mar 13, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> 12 really is crazy. If they do want to set a symbol for change then that is the first thing they have to fix.



The best we can do right now is hope the new guy will be a pope of positive change.



Mikhal18 said:


> So, basically, the world stays the same.
> Christians have a new "Don".
> 
> All the popes will forever be the same. The Vatican has huge amounts of gold and other valuables (it's a rumor, I haven't seen them fyi :V), yet, they want people to donate. Seems reasonable. Why not spreading the whole fortune throughout their "Faithful mob",especially the ones that need the most? - oops I went there. >_>"
> ...



I've been to the Vatican. You would not believe how much gold is on display in there. Of course way back when commoners weren't too educated, a bunch of pretty paintings and shiny things all housed in seemingly impossible architecture (for its time) was a great recruiting tool for the church to wow people in.


----------



## Llamapotamus (Mar 13, 2013)

I know it's already been pointed out that he openly rejected a same-sex marriage bill in Argentina, but perhaps you'd rather hear it from the man himself rather than a fellow furry. Here for your viewing pleasure:
http://www.infobae.com/notas/525351...monio-gay-es-039una-movida-del-Diablo039.html

(might wanna use Google translate)


----------



## Mikhal18 (Mar 13, 2013)

I... I don't get it.
In the bible, it clearly says Idolatry is forbidden, yet Christians clearly bow down to statues, crosses and stuff...
So... Is it just me, or there's something wrong here?
(just sayin', the new pope should really start re-reading the book and demanding for these errors to be rectyfied.)


----------



## Aetius (Mar 13, 2013)

Mikhal18 said:


> I... I don't get it.
> In the bible, it clearly says Idolatry is forbidden, yet Christians clearly bow down to statues, crosses and stuff...
> So... Is it just me, or there's something wrong here?
> (just sayin', the new pope should really start re-reading the book and demanding for these errors to be rectyfied.)



Maybe because the Catholic church is not based solely on the bible. That was one of the main points of contention that the early protestants had with the church.
Look more into Catholic Teachings if you wish to improve on being condensing.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Mar 13, 2013)

Mikhal18 said:


> I... I don't get it.
> In the bible, it clearly says Idolatry is forbidden, yet Christians clearly bow down to statues, crosses and stuff...
> So... Is it just me, or there's something wrong here?
> (just sayin', the new pope should really start re-reading the book and demanding for these errors to be rectyfied.)


It says in the bible what the clergy want it to say. If it doesn't fit with what they want it is ignored or interpreted to heck and back.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 13, 2013)

Toboe Moonclaw said:


> It says in the bible what the clergy want it to say. If it doesn't fit with what they want it is ignored or interpreted to heck and back.



Not to mention that the bible is so full of direct contradictions you can say anything you want with it anyway.
Homosexuality? "Weeeell... God does call gays an abomination but Jesus also wants us to love each other!" :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 13, 2013)

In early christianity they were very emphatic about avoiding idols. Most early christian art is symbols and ciphers, such as Ki-ro's [one is on top of the church in my town actually, although it's modern] and those fish symbols. Christianity was a minority practice and showing it off wasn't such a great idea.

However as other tribes of people were christianised grand artworks and architecture were comissioned through the ages. Some even use nanotechnology [such as stained glass windows in some old cathedrals that employ gold nano particles to produce a red tint]

Very few people want the symbol of their mighty empires to be poverty, so glam and glitz became the focus until protestant movements emerged and declared  art to be sinful. 

Personally I like all the art which got made through the ages, and if people go to see it then it provides employment. So I don't care what it says in their holy texts, the decision to have beautiful paitings and sculptures was a good thing in my opinion.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 13, 2013)

Mikhal18 said:


> So, basically, the world stays the same.
> Christians have a new "Don".



So basically you're too stupid to realize that the Pope only has any sort of relevance to Catholics and not Christians as a whole. But hey, while we're going to go off on being morally superior, who cares if we can at least attempt to be factually accurate with out snark. :V

In any case this guy apparently has a fiscal background and is known as a man of the poor and downtrodden. There are reports of him visiting a hospice wherein he washed and kissed the feet of AIDS patients. So perhaps he has a personal agenda when it comes to awareness of HIV.

It'll be interesting to watch his Easter address to the Vatican. I'd imagine he'd take that time to try and set a tone for his papacy, though it likely won't be a long one given that he's 76. 

Also he looks strikingly like legendary New York Yankees catcher Yogi Berra.


----------



## Azure (Mar 13, 2013)

Mikhal18 said:


> The Vatican has huge amounts of gold and other valuables (it's a rumor, I haven't seen them fyi :V), yet, they want people to donate.


this reminds me of one thing i saw on late night television. a televangelist was preaching some nonsense about DONATE YOUR MONEY AND WE WILL BURN IT AND THE LORD WILL THEN GIVE IT BACK TO YOU TWOFOLD!!!!

then they had some testimonies of people who got MIRACLE MONEY!! 

let me be clear;

THEY SENT THEIR MONEY OFF TO BE "BURNED" AND JUST HOPED FOR SOME "REAL" MONEY TO COME THEIR WAY!!!

i missed my fucking boat man, i should have been bilking every mentally deficient tom dick and harry for his hard earned burning money IN EXCHANGE FOR HOPE!

*uncontrollable sobbing*



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> There are reports of him visiting a hospice wherein he washed and kissed the feet of AIDS patients. So perhaps he has a personal agenda when it comes to awareness of HIV.


yeah just like his savior eh? what a photo opportunity that was i bet. maybe he should just tell africa to WEAR FUCKING CONDOMS!  may his death be swift and his reign brief


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 13, 2013)

Azure said:


> maybe he should just tell africa to WEAR FUCKING CONDOMS!


I'd hate to agree with such a charged anti-theist statement, but Azure does have a point.  If a pope really wanted to help with the aids epidemic he would have told them to wear condoms.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 13, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> I'd hate to agree with such a charged statement, but Azure does have a point.  If a pope really wanted to help with the aids epidemic he would have told them to wear condoms.



Of course he hasn't been pope for an entire friggin day yet so no one knows. Hence my choice of words of "perhaps".

But nah, let's ignore that and instead overreact and wish for the guy's death. Because that's reasonable.

Then again that's par for the course when it comes to Azure. :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 13, 2013)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Of course he hasn't been pope for an entire friggin day yet so no one knows. Hence my choice of words of "perhaps".
> 
> But nah, let's ignore that and instead overreact and wish for the guy's death. Because that's reasonable.
> 
> Then again that's par for the course when it comes to Azure. :V


He's against the use of condoms so it's a safe bet he's going to be against the use of condoms.


----------



## Azure (Mar 13, 2013)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> But nah, let's ignore that and instead overreact and wish for the guy's death. Because that's reasonable.
> 
> Then again that's par for the course when it comes to Azure. :V


hey i dunno if its par for the course or not but 2 million people dying every year and another 2 million additionally infected with a supervirus receiving encouragement from the most important moral force in many of their lives sure sounds like a great fucking idea amirite? par for the course. or you can just dismiss everything i say with a silly little quip about what you THINK you expect from me. never mind reading and FACTS.

EDIT- and what a silly thing to say i wished for his death. i know he is going to die. i just WISH it'd hurry up. extend that to the rest of the college of cardinals as well.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 13, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> He's against the use of condoms so it's a safe bet he's going to be against the use of condoms.



He's also taking on a new position on a world stage where he has a lot more to consider than his home country of Argentina.

One of his goals was to make the faith more accessible to the people regardless of social status. Most notably considering that of single mothers.  By holding a position which brings with it a greater exposure to world concerns of today's average Catholic and what they'd like to see, it's possible he may change his views if for no other reason, again, to make the church more accessible to today's Catholic. Now I wouldn't go so far as to have him come out in support of gay marriage or adoption. But I can see him falling in line with John Paul II and Benedict who in their later years as Pope did in fact recognize the benefits of contraceptives, especially concerning HIV in places like Africa. 

Regardless, his selection again is likely more due to his outspokenness concerning fiscal policy. He's led the charge against Argentina's unfettered capitalistic policies which have impoverished millions.  And it's no secret that the Vatican would like to get in on trying to get into the world financial crisis debate.




Azure said:


> hey i dunno if its par for the course or not but 2 million people dying every year and another 2 million additionally infected with a supervirus receiving encouragement from the most important moral force in many of their lives sure sounds like a great fucking idea amirite? par for the course. or you can just dismiss everything i say with a silly little quip about what you THINK you expect from me. never mind reading and FACTS.
> 
> EDIT- and what a silly thing to say i wished for his death. i know he is going to die. i just WISH it'd hurry up. extend that to the rest of the college of cardinals as well.



Considering again that the past two Popes, ie the ones any of us right now likely remember, did a U-Turn on the issue of contraceptives would lead one to believe that we're going to see a policy hat-trick here, especially, as I mentioned, we're talking about a guy who wants to make the Church more relatable to the average Joe. 

Hence why it's an overreaction from you again. The so-called blanket ban on contraceptives as far as the papacy is concerned is anything but consistent platform over the past 20 or so years.

But please tell me moar how much this all bothers you so much that you feel the need to wish an old man who in all respects means nothing to you in your day-to-day life to die soon.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 13, 2013)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> And it's no secret that the Vatican would like to get in on trying to get into the world financial crisis debate.


Oh god oh god oh god oh god oh god, a pope getting involved in the world's economy is the last thing the world's economy needs.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 13, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Oh god oh god oh god oh god oh god, a pope getting involved in the world's economy is the last thing the world's economy needs.



Give me your reasons why not Mr. Greenspan.

Especially when it was also a possibility that Peter Turkson, a well-versed and studied cardinal in economic theory from Africa was a front runner for the Papacy at one time.  If someone knows what their talking about, why shouldn't they throw in their opinions?


----------



## Azure (Mar 13, 2013)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> H
> Considering again that the past two Popes, ie the ones any of us right now likely remember, did a U-Turn on the issue of contraceptives would lead one to believe that we're going to see a policy hat-trick here, especially, as I mentioned, we're talking about a guy who wants to make the Church more relatable to the average Joe.
> 
> Hence why it's an overreaction from you again. The so-called blanket ban on contraceptives as far as the papacy is concerned is anything but consistent platform over the past 20 or so years.
> ...


yeah if its such a consistent position why do the go out of their way to say it isn't a "moral" or "real" solution to the AIDS epidemic, and that its only for "exceptional circumstances". could have fooled me yo. but hey tell me moar about what its like to tow such a heavy line and make such giant excuses in the face of atrocity and the VERY PUBLIC decades longstanding disapproval of something that is clearly safe and intelligent and would have solved loads of other problems to boot but hey jesus dont want you for a sunbeam if you wrap before you tap broski.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 13, 2013)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Give me your reasons why not Mr. Greenspan.
> 
> Especially when it was also a possibility that a well-versed and studied cardinal in economic theory from Africa was a front runner for the Papacy at one time.  If someone knows what their talking about, why shouldn't they throw in their opinions?


Problems
1)The cardinal in economic theory from africa didn't win.
2)The current pope has a masters in chemistry, NOT economic theory
3)He would create widespread religious push into economics in catholic nations when different national economies require different economic principles.  Like how the usa requires a singular currency whereas the euro fucked up europe and because of greece it had a chain reaction cause they share the same currency.

This would end in tears.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 13, 2013)

Azure said:


> yeah if its such a consistent position why do the go out of their way to say it isn't a "moral" or "real" solution to the AIDS epidemic, and that its only for "exceptional circumstances". could have fooled me yo. but hey tell me moar about what its like to tow such a heavy line and make such giant excuses in the face of atrocity and the VERY PUBLIC decades longstanding disapproval of something that is clearly safe and intelligent and would have solved loads of other problems to boot but hey jesus dont want you for a sunbeam if you wrap before you tap broski.



If you had read correctly I said "anything but consistent" ie "inconsistent".  What that excerpt tells you is that he can see how in some instances it can be useful, but ultimately he doesn't view contraceptives as a be-all end-all solution, if I'd wager a guess likely due to the fact that as Pope he's not going to go all-in on possibly fully supporting the idea of recreational sex.  The abstinence angle as recent Pope's have started to realize isn't realistic, especially when considering prostitution and so forth. 

And I tend to look at this as an unaffected observer.  As a Catholic myself I can't say that whatever the Pope says or does really effects me in any significant way, nor does it for the millions of other Catholics in the first world. It seems like the people who tend to bitch and moan about this stuff the most are those who are even less effected by a Pope than I am.




CannonFodder said:


> Problems
> 1)The cardinal in economic theory from africa didn't win.
> 2)The current pope has a masters in chemistry, NOT economic theory
> 3)He would create widespread religious push into economics in catholic nations when different national economies require different economic principles.  Like how the usa requires a singular currency whereas the euro fucked up europe and because of greece it had a chain reaction cause they share the same currency.
> ...



You said "a pope", not Francis. Be more specific in what you're arguing.  I said that if a Pope, who could have been Turkson, had came from that background in economics then why shouldn't he have a voice as the head of the Vatican?

As far as Francis is concerned, as a man who apparently has a deep-seeded knowledge and first-hand experience living amongst the poor in the slums of Argentina and being an activist concerning the economic state of his home country, his voice as a lobby for the poor and the destructive nature of irresponsible economic practices can be valuable. 

Wide-spread religious push into economics?  He sure as hell didn't do that in Argentina. But it's not surprising of course that you wouldn't want to even give the possibility a chance given your history of unrealistic predictions.  How could I have given you the benefit of the doubt that you'd have something better o add then "HIS ANSWER WILL BE MORE GOD" while going off on an unrelated tanget about the dollar and Euro.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 13, 2013)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> And I tend to look at this as an unaffected observer.  As a Catholic myself I can't say that whatever the Pope says or does really effects me in any significant way, nor does it for the millions of other Catholics in the first world. It seems like the people who tend to bitch and moan about this stuff the most are those who are even less effected by a Pope than I am.


However religion is one of the basic basis for society and who individuals grow into be and who they are.  Saying that the pope doesn't effect society when he represents the head leader of one of the largest religions in the world is about realistic as saying that government doesn't effect society either.  He views may not on a microscopic view effect you personally, however he can impact you on the macroscopic level by trying to push forth doctrine that can effect the government, your individual church, your family, your friends, your co-workers and through a chain reaction you as a individual.  To reject his effect on you even if indirectly is to reject how society can effect a person even if they are not directly being effected.

Basically the pope effects society which in turn effects you.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Mar 13, 2013)

Mikhal18 said:


> Christians have a new "Don".



You know that there are 800 million Protestants in the world, right?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 13, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> However religion is one of the basic basis for society and who individuals grow into be and who they are.  Saying that the pope doesn't effect society when he represents the head leader of one of the largest religions in the world is about realistic as saying that government doesn't effect society either.  He views may not on a microscopic view effect you personally, however he can impact you on the macroscopic level by trying to push forth doctrine that can effect the government, your individual church, your family, your friends, your co-workers and through a chain reaction you as a individual.  To reject his effect on you even if indirectly is to reject how society can effect a person even if they are not directly being effected.
> 
> Basically the pope effects society which in turn effects you.



Uh no.

How about try reading a few polls.  Over 50% of US Catholics are in favor of gay marriage. 82% view contraceptives as "morally acceptable".

How's that for macroscopic.

I believe if any denomination of Christianity is having a larger effect on the populace, it's the evangelicals who have no central head, but I digress.

As far as our society goes, in the Federal government Catholics make up 25% (mostly Democrats) of the Senate and roughly 31% (again, mostly Democrats) of the House of Representatives.  Back in 2011, the majority of Catholics in either House voted for marriage equality for same-sex couples in strong contradiction to what the Vatican has consistently said on that matter.

So no, not seeing your point here where what the Pope says is suddenly having a great deal of influence over the society that you and I both live in.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Mar 13, 2013)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Uh no.
> 
> How about try reading a few polls.  Over 50% of US Catholics are in favor of gay marriage. 82% view contraceptives as "morally acceptable".
> 
> ...



And what about that thing with the American nun organizations 'going rogue' on topics such as masturbation, homosexuality and birth control.

Really, what this thread is is simple, it's a bunch of non-Catholics who are ignorant about Catholicism, who make no effort to research Catholicism, attempting a pseudo-intellectual discussion about Catholicism.  BUT MY GOD, if a bunch of guys on a Catholic forum were all 'FURRIES JUST FUCK DOGS', everyone would here would be up in arms about how the Catholics are a bunch of ignorant morons who assume their closed minded views are correct and absolute and who make no effort to acquire new knowledge...


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 13, 2013)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Uh no.
> 
> How about try reading a few polls.  Over 50% of US Catholics are in favor of gay marriage. 82% view contraceptives as "morally acceptable".
> 
> ...


I was using government as a analogy.  I was saying that saying that the pope does not effect the catholic church and in turn society was to reject his importance in society.
As for the catholic church and glbt explain to me then how the pope is unimportant when it comes why the church views being gay as a sin and contraceptive as well?  Also how they ban people from church for being gay and also are one of the biggest groups to discourage condoms and are one of the reasons why aids has become a pandemic?
Also I'm talking about worldwide as a whole the catholic church, not just the usa.  If we were just talking about the usa we wouldn't have mentioned africa.


AshleyAshes said:


> BUT MY GOD, if a bunch of guys on a Catholic forum were  all 'FURRIES JUST FUCK DOGS', everyone would here would be up in arms  about how the Catholics are a bunch of ignorant morons who assume their  closed minded views are correct and absolute and who make no effort to  acquire new knowledge...


That has got to be the worst analogy. . of all time.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 13, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> I was using government as a analogy.  I was saying that saying that the pope does not effect the catholic church and in turn society was to reject his importance in society.
> As for the catholic church and glbt explain to me then how the pope is unimportant when it comes why the church views being gay as a sin and contraceptive as well?  Also how they ban people from church for being gay and also are one of the biggest groups to discourage condoms and are one of the reasons why aids has become a pandemic?
> Also I'm talking about worldwide as a whole the catholic church, not just the usa.  If we were just talking about the usa we wouldn't have mentioned africa.



Again, please try reading my posts when I mention "THE FIRST WORLD".

As far as Africa is concerned, honestly?  You're going to try and hang over AIDS in Africa on me as at least what your post is implying, is solely Catholicism's fault.  Spare me.

It's estimated less than a quarter of all people in Africa subscribe to Catholicism and even then, the policies are give and take on many issues.  Further, the greater presence in the region, Christianity-wise is Protestantism and the various denominations therein.  If you want to start going off on what religion is likely having a greater effect on the use of contraception in Africa, I'd place my money on Islam which represents 47% of the population of the continent.  Throw in cultural issues dragging the various societies down from living under dictatorships and military regimes along with people still holding grudges against different tribes in Africa predating Judeo-Christian religious influence, objectifying of women and young girls leading to rape as well as the acceptance of "corrective rape", drug-use, poverty, and so forth there's a lot more going on that's helping this pandamic of AIDS on a societal level than just some dude in Italy saying condoms are bad.  To try and make the claim that it is would be to simplify the issue, and shows a lack of understanding into a greater issue of what it means to be living in the third-world.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Mar 14, 2013)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> So basically you're too stupid to realize that the Pope only has any sort of relevance to Catholics and not Christians as a whole. But hey, while we're going to go off on being morally superior, who cares if we can at least attempt to be factually accurate with out snark. :V


Wait, there's a difference between catholics and christians? I honestly thought they were pretty much different terms to describe the same thing.
forgive me for not keeping up with western fairy tales!


----------



## Zaraphayx (Mar 14, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> Really, what this thread is is simple, it's a bunch of non-Catholics who are ignorant about Catholicism, who make no effort to research Catholicism, attempting a pseudo-intellectual discussion about Catholicism.



To be honest, I venture a guess that a lot of people who are standard issue 'lazy christians' don't even know the most basic differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

But my parents were 'christian' and rejected me for being the gay so I feel justified in slandering the shit out of one of the biggest humanitarian forces in the world. :V


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 14, 2013)

Hinalle K. said:


> Wait, there's a difference between catholics and christians? I honestly thought they were pretty much different terms to describe the same thing.
> forgive me for not keeping up with western fairy tales!



Ignorance of the differences between denominations of Christianity, especially if you're going to attempt to go off on an emotion-fueled rant on the policies of one person from one denomination, pretty much turns the focus away from the point and onto the stupidity of the comment.  It's the equivalent of saying that Greek and Roman Mythologies are interchangeable.

Know your shit instead of just blindly spewing shit.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Mar 14, 2013)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Ignorance of the differences between denominations of Christianity, especially if you're going to attempt to go off on an emotion-fueled rant on the policies of one person from one denomination, pretty much turns the focus away from the point and onto the stupidity of the comment.  It's the equivalent of saying that Greek and Roman Mythology are interchangeable.
> 
> Know your shit instead of just blindly spewing shit.


Now I just feel bad!

I'll be sure to watch the Grynch next time I'm debating the existence of Santa :V


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Mar 14, 2013)

And I'll be sure to remember that the level of intelligent conversation on FAF concerning religion is relegated mostly to nothing but circle jerks of people too in-love with their own moral superiority to get something as simple as who the Pope represents right.

Because hey, what's blind hatred of something without the "blind" part, amirite?  :V


----------



## Llamapotamus (Mar 14, 2013)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> And I'll be sure to remember that the level of intelligent conversation on FAF concerning religion is relegated mostly to nothing but circle jerks of people too in-love with their own moral superiority to get something as simple as who the Pope represents right.
> 
> Because hey, what's blind hatred of something without the "blind" part, amirite?  :V



Wow, I love hearing blanket statements like this! To be fair though, I'm sure every other denomination wishes they could have the equivalent of a pope. I mean, besides Martin Luther King Jr., who in recent memory has had as much or more influence than a pope?


----------



## Rilvor (Mar 14, 2013)

Llamapotamus said:


> Wow, I love hearing blanket statements like this! To be fair though, I'm sure every other denomination wishes they could have the equivalent of a pope. I mean, besides Martin Luther King Jr., who in recent memory has had as much or more influence than a pope?



Oprah Winfrey used to be quite the figure. Still is, I wager.


----------



## Llamapotamus (Mar 14, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> Oprah Winfrey used to be quite the figure. Still is, I wager.



Oh, I meant in the context of non-catholic christians working for the church...


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 14, 2013)

Aetius said:


> Inb4 he declares a crusade to take back the Falklands



_"Don't mention the (Falklands) war!" _

(Phew, I think you got away with it...)


----------



## Bliss (Mar 14, 2013)

Aetius said:


> Inb4 he declares a crusade to take back the Falklands


Worry not; it is not the first time our Good Queen Bess has had to stand up as the most invincible and most mighty defender of the Christian faith against  all the idolatry of those unworthy ones that live amongst Christians, who falsely profess the name of Christ, and confound a Papist armada!


----------



## Kosdu (Mar 14, 2013)

Let's hope this Pope won't be an ass like the others, sitting in a palace of gold preaching how you should give to the poor. It's quite honestly a disgrace. Even when I was catholic, I didn't give a damn about the pope or the vatican.




If we could have a pope like Martin Luther King Jr., that would be amazing. He is the one man I can think of that genuinely sought to do such good when the vast majority was against him, one of the few deservin to say he was a "good christian". I'm sure there are others, but I'm willing to bet they aren't as nearly as awesome as him.

Want to bet the church doesn't recognize him as a saint? Oh wait, they can only do that if he publishes writing or does other stuff to support the church. 


I'm done ranting here, I find nothing wrong with the average catholic or christian, but it's all f'ed up in the high tiers of power, and I hope that someday changes.


----------



## Kangamutt (Mar 14, 2013)

Kosdu said:


> Let's hope this Pope won't be an ass like the others, sitting in a palace of gold preaching how you should give to the poor. It's quite honestly a disgrace. Even when I was catholic, I didn't give a damn about the pope or the vatican.



I doubt Pope Francis is going to be like that.  From what I've learned, before his ascension he lived very modestly by choice and I'm sure he isn't going to give that up because he was given a new position.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 14, 2013)

Kosdu said:


> Let's hope this Pope won't be an ass like the  others, sitting in a palace of gold preaching how you should give to the  poor. It's quite honestly a disgrace. Even when I was catholic, I  didn't give a damn about the pope or the vatican.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, the world would be a much better place if there was a pope who genuinely sought to do good in the world.


Rilvor said:


> Oprah Winfrey used to be quite the figure. Still is, I wager.


"Look under your seats.  You're getting a free ticket to heaven!  You're going to heaven! Everyone is going to heaven!" 


Term_the_Schmuck said:


> And I'll be sure to remember that the level of intelligent conversation on FAF concerning religion is relegated mostly to nothing but circle jerks of people too in-love with their own moral superiority to get something as simple as who the Pope represents right.
> 
> Because hey, what's blind hatred of something without the "blind" part, amirite?  :V


Wonder pseudo psychologist powers activate!  Form of a quack!
Just so you know for future refence I am christian, I just don't like how the last few popes have pretty much been trying to set the world back societally and have been more interested in hiding abuse, fighting abortion and such rather than trying to help the world.


----------



## Kazooie (Mar 14, 2013)

Kosdu said:


> Let's hope this Pope won't be an ass like the others,


If there were pope cloning vats in a pope breeding facility where popes are born and raised in strict sanctimonious conditions he would be from it, according to everything I've read so far. They even have pictures of him as a fetus, gestating in the center of a decorative cross tank w/ fancy jesus-moulded nutritional feeding jel.


----------



## Azure (Mar 14, 2013)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> If you had read correctly I said "anything but consistent" ie "inconsistent".  What that excerpt tells you is that he can see how in some instances it can be useful, but ultimately he doesn't view contraceptives as a be-all end-all solution, if I'd wager a guess likely due to the fact that as Pope he's not going to go all-in on possibly fully supporting the idea of recreational sex.  The abstinence angle as recent Pope's have started to realize isn't realistic, especially when considering prostitution and so forth.


ok cool so the pope doesnt have to endorse recreational sex to promote safe sex, and condoms dont have to end anything to help be a reducing factor. and their position is VERY CONSISTENT since the mid 60's and time untold before, as well as their idea of contraception, and it only sorta kinda barely budged in the most couched softball terms for a bare twinkling of an instant before this guy is gonna say condumz are bad and you are hell bound pagan scum so even that little scrap of hope is pointless and may as well not have happened at all. 



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> And I tend to look at this as an unaffected observer.  As a Catholic myself I can't say that whatever the Pope says or does really effects me in any significant way, nor does it for the millions of other Catholics in the first world. It seems like the people who tend to bitch and moan about this stuff the most are those who are even less effected by a Pope than I am.


ah so you give a shit but then you dont. why did you even bother posting to defend the current popes positions then? thought you dont care and arent affected. you dont have to be affected to point out hypocrisy and harm being done, do you? i thought not. but hey keep expecting thing from me and blaming the rest on the protestants by all means bro.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 14, 2013)

A significant amount of people on the earth do adhear to the vatican's will, eventhough not all catholics do. 

This number is significant enough that instruction to avoid sexual protection will result in more people contracting STI's, and in turn passing them on to the rest of us via other people. 

Whether or not other religions are also responsible for poor advice on sexual protection is irrelevant to direct criticism of the vatican. The fact other people are _also _assisting the spread of infection does not excuse them for publishing ridiculous advice. 

To my knowledge nobody is making the claim that the pope is single handedly responsible for HIV's spread. Damn right it would be 'to simplify the issue', it would be moronic. This does not mean that criticism directed at the vatican is unjustified. I think suggesting that people view the pope as the single reason HIV is spreading as fast as it is in the third world is a straw man. 

In fact you know this, since cannonfodder specified it was 'one of the reasons'.


----------



## Golden (Mar 14, 2013)

Oh look... another culture war thread. How fresh and original :V


----------



## Zaraphayx (Mar 14, 2013)

RaichuOPs said:


> Oh look... another culture war thread. How fresh and original :V



As original as the internet gets, unfortunately. :V


----------



## Hateful Bitch (Mar 14, 2013)

Jumping in and out to say that this is my favourite pope-related thing.
http://i.imgur.com/LOpUbyj.png


----------



## Littlerock (Mar 15, 2013)

I'd like to clear at least one thing up here;_ we do not worship idols_. Period. We pray to other holy souls for help, prayers, blessings, and protection, and we use veneration of these souls' images (statues, paintings, medals, ect.) as a form of prayer, and a show of respect. All of the worshiping, however, goes to the Holy Trinity. I once had someone ask me why a whole church kneels in front of a tabernacle that is open. We do not kneel to the tabernacle itself, but what is contained within it; the body of Christ. Same goes with the monstrance.

_Okay_?

Okay.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Mar 15, 2013)

O-tay!


----------



## Aleu (Mar 15, 2013)

Littlerock said:


> I'd like to clear at least one thing up here;_ we do not worship idols_. Period. We pray to other holy souls for help, prayers, blessings, and protection, and we use veneration of these souls' images (statues, paintings, medals, ect.) as a form of prayer, and a show of respect. All of the worshiping, however, goes to the Holy Trinity. I once had someone ask me why a whole church kneels in front of a tabernacle that is open. We do not kneel to the tabernacle itself, but what is contained within it; the body of Christ. Same goes with the monstrance.
> 
> _Okay_?
> 
> Okay.



I'm still boggled how some christians believe that Catholics worship idols when they do the same fucking thing except worse regarding the cross.

"Hey, fuck those Catholics for breaking one of the commandments and worshiping Mary. True Christians pay their homage to a torture device!"


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 15, 2013)

Littlerock said:


> I'd like to clear at least one thing up here;_ we do not worship idols_. Period. We pray to other holy souls for help, prayers, blessings, and protection, and we use veneration of these souls' images (statues, paintings, medals, ect.) as a form of prayer, and a show of respect. All of the worshiping, however, goes to the Holy Trinity.



And the difference between worshipping and "veneration" is... what, exactly? Especially when in both cases you're assuming a particular position before the object and praying in the general direction of the object.

"I venerate images of saints, you worship idols of saints..."



Littlerock said:


> I once had someone ask me why a whole church kneels in front of a tabernacle that is open. We do not kneel to the tabernacle itself, but what is contained within it; the body of Christ. Same goes with the monstrance.



Hang on, what's this "body of Christ" that is "contained" in a tabernacle? Isn't the whole _point_ of Christianity the belief that _Jesus rose from the dead and that he left *no* body?_ :roll:


----------



## Bliss (Mar 15, 2013)

Littlerock said:


> I'd like to clear at least one thing up here;_ we do not worship idols_. Period. We pray to other holy souls for help, prayers, blessings, and protection, and we use veneration of these souls' images (statues, paintings, medals, ect.) as a form of prayer, and a show of respect. All of the worshiping, however, goes to the Holy Trinity. I once had someone ask me why a whole church kneels in front of a tabernacle that is open. We do not kneel to the tabernacle itself, but what is contained within it; the body of Christ. Same goes with the monstrance.
> 
> _Okay_?
> 
> Okay.


No need to get upset. Yours is not the only religion gone bonkers in respect to its basic tenets.



Aleu said:


> I'm still boggled how some christians believe that Catholics worship idols when they do the same fucking thing except worse regarding the cross.


I am boggled where did you get the idea 'some Christians' (one would assume you refer to good, honest Protestants) worship the cross at all or even more so than Catholics. Unless you mean Eastern Orthodox, but for _obvious_ reasons they do not count.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 15, 2013)

Littlerock said:


> I'd like to clear at least one thing up here;_ we do not worship idols_. Period. We pray to other holy souls for help, prayers, blessings, and protection, and we use veneration of these souls' images (statues, paintings, medals, ect.) as a form of prayer, and a show of respect. All of the worshiping, however, goes to the Holy Trinity. I once had someone ask me why a whole church kneels in front of a tabernacle that is open. We do not kneel to the tabernacle itself, but what is contained within it; the body of Christ. Same goes with the monstrance.
> 
> _Okay_?
> 
> Okay.



Personally I don't care about what you worship. It's the worshipping part as a whole that I don't get since there still is a complete lack of evidence that would suggest that what you are worshipping even exists...


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 15, 2013)

Littlerock said:


> I'd like to clear at least one thing up here;_ we do not worship idols_. Period. We pray to other holy souls for help, prayers, blessings, and protection, and we use veneration of these souls' images (statues, paintings, medals, ect.) as a form of prayer, and a show of respect. All of the worshiping, however, goes to the Holy Trinity. I once had someone ask me why a whole church kneels in front of a tabernacle that is open. We do not kneel to the tabernacle itself, but what is contained within it; the body of Christ. Same goes with the monstrance.
> 
> _Okay_?
> 
> Okay.



Idols are defines as 


An image or representation of a god used as an object of worship.

So any rendition of christian saints and prophets used in worship is arguably an idol. I suppose it depends on whether you say they are the object of worship or not, but if we agree they aren't then honestly no religion worships idols unless they actually believe the object is the god, which clearly makes the term 'representation' mute. 

Paintings and sculptures of the christ are Idols. 
Not that idol worshipping should have any sort of taboo status amongst religions and spiritualists. Whatever moral view you have on it it results in the creation of lovely pieces of art, which is very charming. 

Of course 'idol' has several other definitions including 'someone adored blindly and excessively', which is a little humorous. The pope is surely an idol to many in such a case. x3

Personally I suspect 'idol worshipper' is a largely meaningless insult denominations use to belittle one another [much like posh painters user 'illustrator!' as an insult to artists they view as unrefined and commercialised]. From an outside perspective you're _all _worshipping idols, and none of you are morally inferior for it.


----------



## kyfox (Mar 15, 2013)

If it makes us feel better by worshiping what may be a nonexistent deity, so what? It doesn't hurt you. It doesn't make us any more inferior or superior to you. So why get butthurt over it? *shrugs*
Also, Pascal's wager makes sense in this situation. 

As for the new pope.
I hope that he lives up to the name of the saint he chose. I don't agree with his stance on gay marriage(probably a ton more, I haven't done a lot of reading on him.). Most of all though, I don't care. He's not my leader, I'm not Catholic, I don't live in the Vatican. So if you aren't Catholic or live in the Vatican City, I suggest you don't give a fuck either, he's not going to arrest you because you use condoms or anything.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 15, 2013)

Pascal's wager has an equally plausible and opposite claim for any that are proposed as comforts. 
Maybe eternal life is achieved by following a religion, but then again maybe life is a video game and you only win by realising it is. 
What do we have to gain? Only that which an equal and opposite claim will contradict. What do we have to lose? Time, bother and integrity. 

This said, I'm not arguing that worshipping sculptures or 'imaterial' beings', makes people morally inferior. 

Furthermore the reason we should give a fuck is that what the vatican says and does influences many of us, regardless of whether we are catholic. Sexually transmitted infections don't care if you're catholic and the horros of the abuse done by priests and covered up by bishops are no less deplorable to those of us outside of catholicism, which is why even those of us without Gods desperately want a vatican which will expose terrible criminals in its ranks rather than lodging them.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 15, 2013)

kyfox said:


> If it makes us feel better by worshiping what may be a nonexistent deity, so what? It doesn't hurt you. It doesn't make us any more inferior or superior to you. So why get butthurt over it? *shrugs*
> Also, Pascal's wager makes sense in this situation.



Of course it doesn't hurt me. But that isn't the point! When confronted about their beliefs most christians always say something along the lines of "what do you want from me? I didn't do anything!". That is exactly right. You didn't do _anything_. While the pope went to Africa in the name of christianity and proclaimed to the people there that condoms are worse than AIDS you didn't do anything at all. When christians are harassing gay people in the name of your god you also aren't doing anything.

Also, Pascal's wager makes sense in no situations. Becuase aus Fallow said you are ignoring all the other religions and all the other possible gods. Why are _YOU_ right but they are all wrong?


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 15, 2013)

All religion is 100% insanity.

The Pope is a nonsensical loony.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Mar 15, 2013)

kyfox said:


> If it makes us feel better by worshiping what may be a nonexistent deity, so what? It doesn't hurt you. It doesn't make us any more inferior or superior to you. So why get butthurt over it? *shrugs*
> Also, Pascal's wager makes sense in this situation.
> 
> As for the new pope.
> I hope that he lives up to the name of the saint he chose. I don't agree with his stance on gay marriage(probably a ton more, I haven't done a lot of reading on him.). Most of all though, I don't care. He's not my leader, I'm not Catholic, I don't live in the Vatican. So if you aren't Catholic or live in the Vatican City, I suggest you don't give a fuck either, he's not going to arrest you because you use condoms or anything.


For some it is butthurt over "people disagree with me!" for other it is "butthurt" over what said group is doing. (Covering child abuse, picketing burials, flying planes into buildings, bombing abortion-clinics to name a few examples)

And the problem with Pascals wager: if the "real" one is jealous, worshipping the wrong god will make it worse. If he isn't it is most likely he doesn't care what you worship as long as you "are good" (by whatever moral system that god has), humanism seems to be the best guess for (read: closest to) what moral system non-jealous gods employ if you go by what most religions/religious sub-groups tell.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 15, 2013)

"We're not harming anybody."

You fuckers almost elected Mitt Romney. You're hurting EVERYONE.


----------



## Catilda Lily (Mar 15, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> "We're not harming anybody."
> 
> You fuckers almost elected Mitt Romney. You're hurting EVERYONE.


Way to group everyone of religion together. I didn't vote for romney. And why do you have to say "you fuckers"


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 15, 2013)

Catilda didn't you know? You can never be polite to a religious person. *Especially *on the internet.



> And the problem with Pascals wager: if the "real" one is jealous, worshipping the wrong god will make it worse. If he isn't it is most likely he doesn't care what you worship as long as you "are good" (by whatever moral system that god has), humanism seems to be the best guess for (read: closest to) what moral system non-jealous gods employ if you go by what most religions/religious sub-groups tell.




This reminds me of a friend's reply to what I call the "Reverse Pascal's Wager" (IE what if you worship the wrong God), and he basically said that even if he remains simply a moral person he's still pretty good, as a lot of earlier religions/Gods either didn't care much for humans, or you got in good if you just lived a moral life. Then you get into other religions like Greek where people go to some common afterlife; and over in the Norse side of things, you had to die in the field of battle in a moment of glory in order to go to Valhalla.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 15, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Catilda didn't you know? You can never be polite to a religious person. *Especially *on the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In essense Pascal's wager is redundant. It is a bet on the unknowable, which is odds '???' out of _infinity_, functioning on one terrible assumption. That terrible assumption is that not investing your belief in any supernaturals cannot be treated the same as any other bet. It can, so everyone is already playing pascal's infinite wager of mysteries.


----------



## Golden (Mar 16, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> In essense Pascal's wager is redundant. It is a bet on the unknowable, which is odds '???' out of _infinity_, functioning on one terrible assumption. That terrible assumption is that not investing your belief in any supernaturals cannot be treated the same as any other bet. It can, so everyone is already playing pascal's infinite wager of mysteries.


  Pascal's Wager makes me lol. Apply it to Game Theory and it disintegrates. I prefer the Revelation Game.


----------



## Nikolinni (Mar 16, 2013)

What's the Revelation Game?


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> What's the Revelation Game?



Probably not as fun as "The Generation Game".


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

catilda lily said:


> Way to group everyone of religion together. I didn't vote for romney. And why do you have to say "you fuckers"



Because that's what Christians are. Fuckers. Spreading Christianity is literally promoting ignorance, and allowing it to spread is allowing the world's average IQ to go down the drain.


----------



## Rilvor (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Because that's what Christians are. Fuckers. Spreading Christianity is literally promoting ignorance, and allowing it to spread is allowing the world's average IQ to go down the drain.



I do not much like your spreading of churlish behavior, but fortunately I have the mind to realize that no amount of verbal flailing will ever change that.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> I do not much like your spreading of churlish behavior, but fortunately I have the mind to realize that no amount of verbal flailing will ever change that.



Sexy.


----------



## Aetius (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> Because that's what Christians are. Fuckers. Spreading Christianity is literally promoting ignorance, and allowing it to spread is allowing the world's average IQ to go down the drain.



Most articulate and philosophical post of 2013.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Aetius said:


> Most articulate and philosophical post of 2013.



Dip dap dorp


----------



## Rasly (Mar 16, 2013)

Church trying to hupe again, things must be going bad in there.

Non related butt, i wonder how much money a pope makes today, must be at least 9 digit number.


----------



## Aetius (Mar 16, 2013)

Rasly said:


> Church trying to hupe again, things must be going bad in there.
> 
> Non related butt, i wonder how much money a pope makes today, must be at least 9 digit number.



The Pope actually doesn't receive a salary. All of his food/housing/travel is paid by the Vatican State.


----------



## Rasly (Mar 16, 2013)

Aetius said:


> The Pope actually doesn't receive a salary. All of his food/housing/travel is paid by the Vatican State.


So the pope is basicaly like a mascot, that other people use to make money? then who in the church monarchy is making the most money?


----------



## Aetius (Mar 16, 2013)

Rasly said:


> So the pope is basicaly like a mascot, that other people use to make money? then who in the church monarchy is making the most money?



Not in that sense, he actually has LOTS of power within the church/Vatican state (The country is technically an absolute monarchy.) The Catholic Church has also been really downsizing on the regalia since the past 30 years (The pope no longer has an ultra expensive and long coronation ceremony nor is he paraded around in a mobile throne by dozens of subjects). However, the Vatican bank despite being under the de-jure control of the Pope, became a source of money laundering for many unsavory Vatican bank presidents.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

I just want to slap anybody who takes the Pope seriously.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> I just want to slap anybody who takes the Pope seriously.



Even if I see him as a serious threat?


----------



## Mikhal18 (Mar 16, 2013)

Ahkmill said:


> I just want to slap anybody who takes the Pope seriously.


Your hand would get quite sore after a couple o' slaps I believe. ._.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Mar 16, 2013)

Mikhal18 said:


> Your hand would get quite sore after a couple o' slaps I believe. ._.



MY PIMP HAND SHALL REMAIN STRONG


----------



## Mikhal18 (Mar 16, 2013)

^taken out of the context, that's quite the statement over there :V

you might consider wearing protection on that hand though. No one knows what you may get after ye'ol'bitchslap.


----------



## Fernin (Mar 16, 2013)

If god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, then he's 100% cool with the fact I don't believe in him, think the religious are crazies and so forth and so on because it's all his damn plan anyways and because he loves me anyways and I'm just doing what he wants (not believing in him, etc) then I don't have a thing to worry about either way! Because I'll either stop existing when I die (which is what I believe) or I'm going to heaven because what I do and believe is god's immutable plan and he loves the fuck out of me anyways. So in short, the pope, and the rest of religion of all flavors, can kiss my ass. XD


----------



## Traven V (Mar 16, 2013)

Bow down before the one you serve...


----------



## Golden (Mar 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> What's the Revelation Game?


  Well, Game Theory tries to explain decision making, and the Revelation Game is an application of that. The game has two players, or God and a person. Assuming that humans primarily want their beliefs to be true, and God primarily does not want to reveal himself, the game concludes that believing in a God without evidence is irrational.


----------



## whiteskunk (Apr 1, 2013)

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/10268654/


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 1, 2013)

whiteskunk said:


> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/10268654/



There aren't many papal submissions on FA are there?


----------



## whiteskunk (Apr 1, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> There aren't many papal submissions on FA are there?



Your guess is as good as mine.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Apr 1, 2013)

We cannot judge a person baced on who he/she serves, by what he/she believes nor by what he/she does for a living. We can only judge a person by their actions and the new Pope is just that, new. Until he makes a desision or is in their for a long enough period of time can we make a judgement. What I have come to the conclusion of by his manner of dress though is that he seems to have a large amount in common with the hard line non-Cathloc Christians (puritans and those akin to them), attire wise a least.


----------



## CaptainCool (Apr 2, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> We cannot judge a person baced on who he/she serves, by what he/she believes nor by what he/she does for a living. We can only judge a person by their actions and the new Pope is just that, new. Until he makes a desision or is in their for a long enough period of time can we make a judgement. What I have come to the conclusion of by his manner of dress though is that he seems to have a large amount in common with the hard line non-Cathloc Christians (puritans and those akin to them), attire wise a least.



Well he already did claim that homosexuality is a plan against god and did everything he could to influence politics in his home country to stop gay marriage from becoming legal.
So yeah, I think we can judge him based on that.


----------



## Rasly (Apr 2, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> We cannot judge a person baced on who he/she *serves*, by what he/she *believes *nor by what he/she *does for a living*. We can only judge a person by *their actions* and the new Pope is just that, new.


Let me guess, you're an christian.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> We cannot judge a person baced on who he/she serves, by what he/she believes nor by what he/she does for a living. We can only judge a person by their actions and the new Pope is just that, new. Until he makes a desision or is in their for a long enough period of time can we make a judgement. What I have come to the conclusion of by his manner of dress though is that he seems to have a large amount in common with the hard line non-Cathloc Christians (puritans and those akin to them), attire wise a least.




The new pope did not just pop into existance before his election. He made plenty of actions beforehand too, which ultimately are the justification for the election.


----------



## CaptainCool (Apr 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> The new pope did not just pop into existance before his election. He made plenty of actions beforehand too, which ultimately are the justification for the election.



My point exactly. It's like saying "he has been pope for a few days now, let's just ignore all the terrible stuff he has already done!"... It's stupid.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Apr 2, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> My point exactly. It's like saying "he has been pope for a few days now, let's just ignore all the terrible stuff he has already done!"... It's stupid.


What terrible things has he done? Has he murdered someone in his climb to his current position? Has he bribed others into accepting his way of thinking? Has he, well, I think you can get the idea. Calling someone's actions terrible should be reserved for when someone commits a crime against the human concience (the holocaust for example), not for a person's beilefs that you disagree with.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

I want to steal the Pope's hat and hang it from my erect penis.


----------



## CaptainCool (Apr 2, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> What terrible things has he done? Has he murdered someone in his climb to his current position? Has he bribed others into accepting his way of thinking? Has he, well, I think you can get the idea. Calling someone's actions terrible should be reserved for when someone commits a crime against the human concience (the holocaust for example), not for a person's beilefs that you disagree with.



He actively tried to force his retardo fairytale beliefs into politics with the goal to permanently ban homosexuals from being married.
He calls homosexuality a "plan against god".
In his opinion abortion and contracptives are part of the "generation of death".

Not only are those terrible and retarded things to do. He is a fucking loonatic who keeps doing these things because his imaginary friend tells him to do so! He doesn't belong at the head of a government, he belongs in an asylum!


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Apr 2, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> What terrible things has he done? Has he murdered someone in his climb to his current position? Has he bribed others into accepting his way of thinking? Has he, well, I think you can get the idea. Calling someone's actions terrible should be reserved for when someone commits a crime against the human concience (the holocaust for example), not for a person's beilefs that you disagree with.



When that person uses their influence to keep others down, they more than qualify for a bit of criticism. Regardless of his position or beliefs, that makes him an asshole.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Apr 2, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> He actively tried to force his retardo fairytale beliefs into politics with the goal to permanently ban homosexuals from being married.
> He calls homosexuality a "plan against god".
> In his opinion abortion and contracptives are part of the "generation of death".
> 
> Not only are those terrible and retarded things to do. He is a fucking loonatic who keeps doing these things because his imaginary friend tells him to do so! He doesn't belong at the head of a government, he belongs in an asylum!


So because he believes in god, he is a lunatic? Newton, Copernicus, Henry J. Heinz (the founder of the company that is on most ketchup bottles), Martin Luther King Jr, and many other people of note were driven by their faith. Are they are lunatics? Think for a minute, do you really think that humans are the highest form of life, that it is impossible for a being to be greater than us? If you look at the people of faith and compair it to the amount of atheists on this world, are a magority of humanity insane? Faith is something that existed as long as human kind has walked upon the earth. It is like yawning or dreaming, there is no function for either of this practically yet we still do it.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

YES. You can still be a lunatic and have good intentions. But believing in a specific religions is an act of insanity. So yes, they are lunatics. As is the Pope. Unlike MLK, though, the Pope is a lunatic who doesn't have any good intentions.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Apr 2, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> YES. You can still be a lunatic and have good intentions. But believing in a specific religions is an act of insanity. So yes, they are lunatics. As is the Pope. Unlike MLK, though, the Pope is a lunatic who doesn't have any good intentions.


How do you know he doesn't have any good intentions if he hasn't done anything?!? No one besides the person who has the intent and those who know the person personally can know another's intentions. You can make assumptions but those often turn out to be false when you actually get to know the person.


----------



## CaptainCool (Apr 2, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> So because he believes in god, he is a lunatic? Newton, Copernicus, Henry J. Heinz (the founder of the company that is on most ketchup bottles), Martin Luther King Jr, and many other people of note were driven by their faith. Are they are lunatics? Think for a minute, do you really think that humans are the highest form of life, that it is impossible for a being to be greater than us? If you look at the people of faith and compair it to the amount of atheists on this world, are a magority of humanity insane? Faith is something that existed as long as human kind has walked upon the earth. It is like yawning or dreaming, there is no function for either of this practically yet we still do it.



My point.
_________
Your Head.

I did NOT say that believing in a god makes you a loonatic. Francis the first or what ever his name is is actively trying to force his beliefs on others and he is making outragous claims based on it. THAT is what makes him a loonatic.

Oh also, I still do believe that the entire concept of religion is complete nonsense. Again, that doesn't make you a loonatic but at the same time it makes it hard for me to take you seriously if you believe in it. Just like I am having a hard time trusting people in higher positions who believe in that stuff. I want my surgeon to be able to distinguish between reality and fiction when he is snooping around in my guts! XP


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 2, 2013)

HE HAS OPENLY SPOKEN ABOUT HOW US HOMOSEXUALS ARE ACTING AGAINST GOD AND MUST BE STOPPED.

The guy is a nutcase, just like EVERY. LAST. POPE. BEFORE. HIM.


----------



## CaptainCool (Apr 2, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> How do you know he doesn't have any good intentions if he hasn't done anything?!?



*BUT HE ALREADY DID DO SOMETHING!! Seriously, how fucking dense are you?! He tried to influence politics in his home country to permanently ban same sex marriage for crying out loud!*


----------



## Mullerornis (Apr 2, 2013)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Even if he thinks he's doing the best for western civilisation, the world is far better off with him dead.


----------



## Mayfurr (Apr 3, 2013)

Mullerornis said:


> The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Even if he thinks he's doing the best for western civilisation, the world is far better off with him dead.



Whoa, hang on there. I don't agree with the Pope (or Catholicism in general) either, but I don't want the guy _dead..._ just out of a position of power.

Not _*dead.*_


----------



## CaptainCool (Apr 3, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> Whoa, hang on there. I don't agree with the Pope (or Catholicism in general) either, but I don't want the guy _dead..._ just out of a position of power.
> 
> Not _*dead.*_



Agreed. Although, how old is he? :V


----------



## Kosdu (Apr 3, 2013)

Mullerornis said:


> The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Even if he thinks he's doing the best for western civilisation, the world is far better off with him dead.



Look who is talking, Mr. Anti-Mainstream-Religion.


It's better to hope for a change of heart than a dead one.


----------



## Nikolinni (Apr 3, 2013)

Yeah, no one should ever wish for someone to be dead. That's just not right. 

Also, who' anti-religion anymore? Being anti mainstream religion is too mainstream.


----------



## Azure (Apr 3, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Yeah, no one should ever wish for someone to be dead. That's just not right.
> 
> Also, who' anti-religion anymore? Being anti mainstream religion is too mainstream.


it aint mainstream enough. because its still around.


----------



## wtfjinx (Apr 3, 2013)

I love how everyone is just "it's never gonna change he's just like the same blah blah blah blah."

You know, you never know. Give him a chance? See what will happen? He's the first Jesuit that has been elected to Papacy. He can't be that bad. We're talking about a man who lived in the slums in a small apartment while he was a cardinal, not some guy who got red designer shoes just because. I wouldn't be shocked if they guy shows up wearing red Chuck Taylors. 

Every Pope is different. Different ideals for the Church, different thoughts. Think about it:

For -his time in office- Pope John Paul II was a GREAT Pope and did amazing great deeds for the world. If you look at him on paper, he was a great Pope FOR HIS TIME. Pope Benedict seemed to be great, with stating his main focus would be cleaning up the Church's scandals. If he did, I don't think so, but...

Give this guy a chance, see how it goes. Don't immediately paint him "bad" just because he's a Catholic Pope.


----------



## BlueStreak98 (Apr 3, 2013)

Sure, yay, why not.


----------



## Aleu (Apr 3, 2013)

wtfjinx said:


> I love how everyone is just "it's never gonna change he's just like the same blah blah blah blah."
> 
> You know, you never know. Give him a chance? See what will happen? He's the first Jesuit that has been elected to Papacy. He can't be that bad. We're talking about a man who lived in the slums in a small apartment while he was a cardinal, not some guy who got red designer shoes just because. I wouldn't be shocked if they guy shows up wearing red Chuck Taylors.
> 
> ...



As stated before, he didn't just appear out of nowehere. He has his positions in his own country before becoming the Pope. Any differences there are won't really affect the world.


----------



## Mayfurr (Apr 4, 2013)

Aleu said:


> As stated before, he didn't just appear out of nowehere. He has his positions in his own country before becoming the Pope. Any differences there are won't really affect the world.



On the other hand, Pope Francis does seem to be already pissing off the higher-ups in the Catholic hierarchy by dispensing with the standard Papal pomp and ceremony... 

At this rate I wonder if he'll last longer than Pope John Paul I, who only lasted 30 days before mysteriously carking it.


----------



## CaptainCool (Apr 4, 2013)

wtfjinx said:


> I love how everyone is just "it's never gonna change he's just like the same blah blah blah blah."
> 
> You know, you never know. Give him a chance? See what will happen? He's the first Jesuit that has been elected to Papacy. He can't be that bad. We're talking about a man who lived in the slums in a small apartment while he was a cardinal, not some guy who got red designer shoes just because. I wouldn't be shocked if they guy shows up wearing red Chuck Taylors.
> 
> ...



I don't judge people based on what they might do in the future. I judge them based on what they have done in the recent past.
And from what I can see he is a homophobic prick with a worldview from the middle ages.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Apr 4, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> I don't judge people based on what they might do in the future. I judge them based on what they have done in the recent past.
> And from what I can see he is a homophobic prick with a worldview from the middle ages.


Isn't that how all Catholics are? For peat's sake, the Dark ages were CREATED by the Vadican. It should be expected that their world view would be from that time. I would be happy if they even got to the rennesance world view, expecting them to look at things the 21st century way is too high an expectation.


----------



## CaptainCool (Apr 4, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> Isn't that how all Catholics are? For peat's sake, the Dark ages were CREATED by the Vadican. It should be expected that their world view would be from that time. I would be happy if they even got to the rennesance world view, expecting them to look at things the 21st century way is too high an expectation.



It is too much to ask of someone to think reasonably and to treat others with tolerance no matter what their sexual orientation is?
No. This is the freaking 21st century and I expect people, at least in the first world, to act accordingly.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Apr 4, 2013)

Why the fuck do people need the pope to guide them to god, if god himself is suppose to be smart enough to guide people. Goes to show god doesn't truly work through people and is a useless non-existent being, either that, or people are just dumb. I mean what's so special about an old man holding a golden cross with a funny hat? Top it off, that's what god picks. Oh, I forgot, they are the wrong Christians.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 4, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Why the fuck do people need the pope to guide them to god, if god himself is suppose to be smart enough to guide people. Goes to show god doesn't truly work through people and is a useless non-existent being, either that, or people are just dumb. I mean what's so special about an old man holding a golden cross with a funny hat? Top it off, that's what god picks. Oh, I forgot, they are the wrong Christians.



[video=youtube;CeV6pxSkcso]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeV6pxSkcso[/video]

Hopefully this won't prove too inflmmatory.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Apr 4, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> [video=youtube;CeV6pxSkcso]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeV6pxSkcso[/video]
> 
> Hopefully this won't prove too inflmmatory.


 At least the people in the cartoon are being honest.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Apr 4, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> It is too much to ask of someone to think reasonably and to treat others with tolerance no matter what their sexual orientation is?
> No. This is the freaking 21st century and I expect people, at least in the first world, to act accordingly.


But he isn't from the first world, he is from South America, and they are made up of second or third world countries. You act like he is from western europe or the US or something, he was in the Amazon rainforest with primitives, it should be expected that his world view is primitive as well.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 4, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> But he isn't from the first world, he is from South America, and they are made up of second or third world countries. You act like he is from western europe or the US or something, he was in the Amazon rainforest with primitives, it should be expected that his world view is primitive as well.



...Seriously?


----------



## CaptainCool (Apr 4, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> But he isn't from the first world, he is from South America, and they are made up of second or third world countries. You act like he is from western europe or the US or something, he was in the Amazon rainforest with primitives, it should be expected that his world view is primitive as well.



I don't think you have a very fitting username here on FAF. You clearly need to put more _thought_ into your posts.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Apr 4, 2013)

I am only tolerant towards people who deserve it in my opinion. Doesn't matter with the sexual orientation. I feel like I need to click with the person in order to feel right with him/her. However, sometimes people's sexual preferences creep me out.


----------



## Mullerornis (Apr 4, 2013)

Kosdu said:


> Look who is talking, Mr. Anti-Mainstream-Religion.
> 
> 
> It's better to hope for a change of heart than a dead one.



Old indoctrinated farts are too late for change.

He truly is better off dead, because even if he is demoted as a Pope, he will still cause harm to other people. And even if he doesn't, he will torment himself.

Death sometimes is the only answer.


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 4, 2013)

I want to fill the Pope's pillowcase with gay furry porn.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 4, 2013)

Lucy Bones said:


> I want to fill the Pope's pillowcase with gay furry porn.



Did you know that hat is to cover up his bunny ears? :v


----------



## Lucy Bones (Apr 4, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Did you know that hat is to cover up his bunny ears? :v



He only uses the Popemobile because if he walked everywhere his tail would be visible.


----------

