Ladys and gentlemen, Your new pope!

[bruspeed]

Yeah, He's a german by the name of Joseph Ratzingerg. He is 79 years old, born in 1926. From what I gather he has admitted to being involved in hitlers army during WW2. Anyways. Just thought I'd say something. At least it isn't Michael J.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3284096/?GT1=6428
Chris.

[MattR]

I thought it strange that they chose an 80 year old Pope...the idea was to choose a pope that will live through the "rapture" or end of christianity...Either the end is really near in their eyes, or they aren't concerened with choosing another pope.

I'm not Catholic, but I do maintain an interest in religion and especially the way the catholic church interacts with world politics...This is a as far as I'm concerned, but we shall see.

[bruspeed]

[QUOTE=MattR]I thought it strange that they chose an 80 year old Pope...the idea was to choose a pope that will live through the "rapture" or end of christianity...Either the end is really near in their eyes, or they aren't concerened with choosing another pope.

I've heard that some one way back in the day someone predicted that this pope would be assassinated, or something along those lines, so maybe he's just bait?? Who knows, but I thought that was very strange as well. Hmmmm.

[sperry]

www.johntitor.com

According to this "time travel from the future", this pope is in for some shit.

More realistically, I think this Pope is basically an "interrum Pope". Not unusual I guess. Consider that JP2 was the third longest reigning Pope, I think shorter papalcies are actually the norm.

What concerns me is that the new Pope isn't progressive enough. The world would be a better place if the Pope would condone birth control and more tollerance. At least JP2 was very open to other religions. Hopefully this guy will follow up on that. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all fundamentally the same deal... it'd be nice if the leaders of those three would get together to celebrate their similarities instead of all this jihad/crusades bullshit that we've delt w/ for the last 1000 years.

[Kevin M]

JP2: This time, it's personal!!1!!

I can't get past movie trail voice guy whenever I read that.

[dknv]

Originally Posted by sperry

What concerns me is that the new Pope isn't progressive enough. The world would be a better place if the Pope would condone birth control and more tollerance.

Based on what I've read about Cardinel Ratzinger, it's not going to happen. He's a hard-liner. But, we shall see.

That thing about the Pope getting assassinated, the prophecy, etc, was about Pope John Paul -- who did have an assassination attempt on his life, and there supposedly was a 'vision' about it happening --- The Lady of Fatima story:

http://www.mb.com.ph/OPED2005041532722.html

[MattR]

Now we get "Benedict"...

So, any guesses on what make the new pope mobile will be?
Audi
Benz
BMW
Who fucking cares?

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by MattR

Who fucking cares?

Ding ding, we have a winner.

[MattR]

Originally Posted by AtomicLabMonkey

Ding ding, we have a winner.

Hehe, agreed.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

JP2: This time, it's personal!!1!!

I can't get past movie trail voice guy whenever I read that.

LOL!!!

[bruspeed]

Originally Posted by MattR

Now we get "Benedict"...

So, any guesses on what make the new pope mobile will be?
Audi
Benz
BMW
Who fucking cares?

someone set up a poll!

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all fundamentally the same deal... it'd be nice if the leaders of those three would get together to celebrate their similarities instead of all this jihad/crusades bullshit that we've delt w/ for the last 1000 years.(quote from sperry)

All I have to say about that is One World Religion. Read all about it in revelations.

[tysonK]

I like Ratzinger he's against "Rock" music.

I agree most rock music today sucks.

[bruspeed]

Originally Posted by tysonK

I like Ratzinger he's against "Rock" music.

I agree most rock music today sucks.

Oh God, I know. I'm probably gonna catch shit for it but the highly touted, and awaited NIN single blows!!!! But I'm hopin for the best still!!

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by bruspeed

Oh God, I know. I'm probably gonna catch shit for it but the highly touted, and awaited NIN single blows!!!! But I'm hopin for the best still!!

I like it, it's very simple. Quite political too, when you listen to the lyrics.

[Pat R.]

You know you're getting old when you've lived to see four different Popes.

It's cool that two of them were named after a member of Led Zeppelin though.

[MikeSTI]

Originally Posted by sperry

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all fundamentally the same deal... it'd be nice if the leaders of those three would get together to celebrate their similarities instead of all this jihad/crusades bullshit that we've delt w/ for the last 1000 years.

Originally Posted by bruspeed

All I have to say about that is One World Religion. Read all about it in revelations.

Besides I dont think Christians have a leader, unless you've seen Jesus walking around some where . I would also like to add that the princibles between the 3 are completetly different.

[Pat R.]

I saw Jesus the other day. He was having lunch with Manuel at El Rosal in Sparks.

[MattR]

Originally Posted by Pat R.

I saw Jesus the other day. He was having lunch with Manuel at El Rosal in Sparks.

Hehe. I passed Jesus on my way into my office this morning. Not "The" Jesus, but Jesus none-the-less. Good guy.

[MikeSTI]

Originally Posted by Pat R.

I saw Jesus the other day. He was having lunch with Manuel at El Rosal in Sparks.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by MikeSTI

I would also like to add that the princibles between the 3 are completetly different.

I don't want to step on toes regarding religion here, I'm really not trying to be disrespectful; it just seems that most major organized religions believe in fundamentally the same thing if you look at the big picture. There are a ton of specific smaller differences, but from what I know of them (admittedly not a whole lot, I'm no expert) they all believe in one omnipotent, omniscient God who created everything, and an afterlife with the division of heaven/hell. That makes them all sound pretty similar to me, especially when compared with an eastern belief like Taoism, which seems more like semi-organized agnosticism with no "The One God" and no concrete "reward/punishment" system at the end of life.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by AtomicLabMonkey

I don't want to step on toes regarding religion here, I'm really not trying to be disrespectful; it just seems that most major organized religions believe in fundamentally the same thing if you look at the big picture. There are a ton of specific smaller differences, but from what I know of them (admittedly not a whole lot, I'm no expert) they all believe in one omnipotent, omniscient God who created everything, and an afterlife with the division of heaven/hell. That makes them all sound pretty similar to me, especially when compared with an eastern belief like Taoism, which seems more like semi-organized agnosticism with no "The One God" and no concrete "reward/punishment" system at the end of life.

Meh, even those are just details. The fundamental of all popular religions are exactly the same: "Love one another as you wish to be loved." It's not called the golden rule for nothing.

Things like whether or not Christ is actually the Son of God, or whether or not Mohammad is the true profit, or whether or not Moses really led the Jews through the desert, or even wheter or not there's heaven and hell, or God him/herself etc, etc, etc, don't change the fundamental teachings of these religions that you can live a better, happier life if you live with moderation and treat others as you want to be treated.

Those fundamentals are in fact the basis for every belief system... you don't even have to believe in God to see that the shared elements of religions are right. Yet, it's the details: abortion, birth control, who lived in which desert 1st, etc, that cause huge issues and wars.

Look at Protestants and Catholics... the two couldn't be more similar w/o being the same... and then look at Belfast.

Or look at Jews and Muslims... they're the same people, from the same place, with the same God... killing each other because one group says they've got a more recent profit.

Religion is actually something where there can be more than one right answer. Isn't it reasonable that God would make himself available to all people in the way that they can best identify with? Why do so many insist that their way of living is the only way that God approves of?

[ScottyS]

Originally Posted by AtomicLabMonkey

I don't want to step on toes regarding religion here, I'm really not trying to be disrespectful; it just seems that most major organized religions believe in fundamentally the same thing if you look at the big picture. There are a ton of specific smaller differences, but from what I know of them (admittedly not a whole lot, I'm no expert) they all believe in one omnipotent, omniscient God who created everything, and an afterlife with the division of heaven/hell. That makes them all sound pretty similar to me, especially when compared with an eastern belief like Taoism, which seems more like semi-organized agnosticism with no "The One God" and no concrete "reward/punishment" system at the end of life.

Yeah, this is always a tough topic, so I'll only make one post. Not smacking anyone here, just throwing out some observations for thought.

I think the parallels that many folk draw between major religions in these PC/one world/peace/love/everyone's OK/etc - crazed days are misleading. To the eye of the average Joe (including me) who gets all his information on religion through the TV or discussions with similarly-informed peers, "organized religion" can all seem the same at the bottom line. I feel that is a phenomenon caused by the emphasis on commonality (in both the informational origins and mediums) rather than emphasis on actual practices. If you look at anything hard enough, you can infer commonality (ASP.NET and Java are both OOP types, but while one might save you, the other will send you to hell ).

My point here is that "major organized religions" can appear to be similar due to 1) Overly-simplistic views taken by both educators and media; 2) The fact that "they" are all comprised of people, thus homogenizing the observed basic-level structure; 3) Inner desires of the observer for everyone to "just get along".

So, where then are the differences? Besides the obvious and always-argued details (critical, but not immediately convincing to the casual, aloof non-stakeholder), look at the real-world, long-term, observed effects upon entire populations and civilizations. The proof is in the pudding, I was always told. I'll be going on the assumption that there are universally recognizable conditions that can be labeled "good" and "bad" in regards to people's lives and welfare.

With just the limited facts we get "reported" to us by the media, National Geographic, and the occasional History prof, contrast the overall living conditions for the common family in Muslim-, Eastern-, Tribal-, and Christian-religion-based cultures. Specifically, treatment of women (and children), development of society, and contribution to world development and betterment. Yes, I know, there are always highlighted examples of horrible things done by individuals from all religions, but just like many would say that GW Bush doesn't truly represent Americans in all aspects you can say the same of those various examples. I'm talking about the overall trend at the level of the commoner here.

This is a huge topic that has an infinite amount of levels on which to explore and argue, so I'm just raising the inital questions.

Like it or not, Western culture had it's origins deeply rooted in Christianity. If a culture is developed slowly over centuries by the combined actions of each little participant in that culture, and that the majority of the populations of Western culture have been driven/heavily-influenced/directed by Christian morals/values/practices, then one may conclude that, in fact, Christianity is what gives us (men & women) the freedom, quality of life, and comfort we have today. That's observation.

I liken it to what I do with tree-ring studies: in a given region, long-term forest growth is determined by climate trends. Each tree forms one ring per year, and the size of that ring is determined by growing conditions for that tree. Sample just a few trees, pool the data, and you get a little bit of the climate trend, but mostly statistical "noise" generated by other influences (soil, competition, disturbance, etc). Sample hundreds of trees in many locations, and you get a clear, common signal showing the climate trend for hundreds of years over the whole region.

Same goes for the previous argument: look at just a few people, and you get a lot of random noise. Look at the entire population over many generations over a long period of time, and you see the overall trends. Religion, especially when organized (meaning hierarchically regulated in real-time) at the regional or global level, can be used by the organizers to the detriment of the commoners. The perfect example of this is the pre-Reformation era in Western civilization.

Anyways, I'll shut up now.

[MikeSTI]

Originally Posted by ScottyS

This is a huge topic that has an infinite amount of levels on which to expore and argue, so I'm just raising the inital questions.

Like it or not, Western culture had it's origins deeply rooted in Christianity. If a culture is developed slowly over centuries by the combined actions of each little participant in that culture, and that the majority of the populations of Western culture have been driven/heavily-influenced/directed by Christian morals/values/practices, then one may conclude that, in fact, Christianity is what gives us (men & women) the freedom, quality of life, and comfort we have today. That's observation..

Well said!!! It just makes we wounder how bad it will get as we test the boundires in USA

I guess Revolation's isn't that bad if you get out on the first boat

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by ScottyS

So, where then are the differences? Besides the obvious and always-argued details (critical, but not immediately convincing to the casual, aloof non-stakeholder), look at the real-world, long-term, observed effects upon entire populations and civilizations. The proof is in the pudding, I was always told. I'll be going on the assumption that there are universally recognizable conditions that can be labeled "good" and "bad" in regards to people's lives and welfare.

..... If a culture is developed slowly over centuries by the combined actions of each little participant in that culture, and that the majority of the populations of Western culture have been driven/heavily-influenced/directed by Christian morals/values/practices, then one may conclude that, in fact, Christianity is what gives us (men & women) the freedom, quality of life, and comfort we have today.

I see what you're saying, although I disagree with your theory. You would have to do a large amount of research and have a lot of factual evidence supporting your argument to even possibly convince me of that last statement.

To address those last two points specifically, quality of life & comfort (which seem like pretty much the same thing to me), I would argue that general quality of life for nation-sized populations has been mostly determined by scientific discovery and corresponding industrial technology & production progress. Since religious orthodoxies have been historically opposed to scientific discovery, I just can't buy your statement that Christianity is directly responsible for current quality of life.

[Kevin M]

Friends don't let friends argue about religion.