Joseph Ratzinger - Pope Benedictus XVI

[GUNWOUNDS]

ah thanks for the info edric.

[Egeides]

For those interested, it seems that Ratzinger-Benedict has a controversial position when it comes to criticism of the Church... like when clerics do pedophilia.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1469055,00.html

I'm not too sure I like that kind of system to manage criminality. I understand the oath of privacy when one comes and wants your councel, but this seems like the Church just wont do what should be done, and refuses a mecanism to manage all that without a potential bias.

[ps501]

You know;  This is a very interesting thread.  I guess my opinions are as follows...

I do think he looks evil (dunno why, just does.  If you ever have watched the movie "The Order" the phrase "the dark pope rises" keeps coming to mind) -- not that I'm being entirely serious or perhaps I am

[Caid Ivik]

If your studying ends in reading Nietzsche's work, I have no doubt you end up with such results.

[Egeides]

Take into account that virtually all of the religions I

[GUNWOUNDS]

You know;

[Anathema]

For those interested, it seems that Ratzinger-Benedict has a controversial position when it comes to criticism of the Church... like when clerics do pedophilia.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1469055,00.html

I'm not too sure I like that kind of system to manage criminality. I understand the oath of privacy when one comes and wants your councel, but this seems like the Church just wont do what should be done, and refuses a mecanism to manage all that without a potential bias.

This is pretty disgusting...especially because they threaten with excommunication if you were to go to the police with this.

[Egeides]

Yeah well... maybe that if science reaches such a state I might get "threaten of changing the law of physics affecting me" LOL

[Caid Ivik]

You should read more written by him on his stances about Church (and its jurisdiction as well) than such boulevard speculations.

[Egeides]

;D

Some journalist had written that there is no use to attack someone with style if you can do it with content. Well seeing both is nice too. I think I did an error here by not going to see the other side and taking too strong a stance. I am still looking at things from a distance on a "wait and see", but I guess I might give a look later.

[ps501]

Sorry Ps501.... religion is no opiate for damn sure.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Ok  i see you know the difference then.. i was worried for a moment that you were including people who truly apply God's teachings to their lives in your "opiate" generalization.

[Caid Ivik]

I disagree, ps501. Religious organizations like Church or ie hindu brahmans are a models of perfect control over what you expect to be "popular dumbness". People are not that dumb...and always can organize themselves. And by organizing I don't mean mass behavior in type of to do what neighbor does.

[ps501]

I disagree, ps501. Religious organizations like Church or ie hindu brahmans are a models of perfect control over what you expect to be "popular dumbness". People are not that dumb...and always can organize themselves. And by organizing I don't mean mass behavior in type of to do what neighbor does.

"models of perfect contol"...  I'd completely agree, and I think your proving my point for me.  So the "people" that attend that Church, are under its control?  So therefore they aren't free thinking?  Moving with a group mentality...

Ok i see you know the difference then.. i was worried for a moment that you were including people who truly apply God's teachings to their lives in your "opiate" generalization.

Naw.

[Caid Ivik]

Self-organizing does not mean being controlled by others. Brahmans have no control over them and they still follow the traditions and are improving its philosophy. Well, there is a "creative idea", which is typical for any type of organization, but to say this "idea" is controlling minds of the followers, that is illogical. To put up acrikuistic argument, define "free thinking".

[nemafakei]

"Ok i see you know the difference then.. "

I thought that was the whole point of the original statement - that Religion is an opiate of the masses. And, let us be honest, the majority of humans, of pretty much any faith, would far rather take an idoelogy as a lioence than take it to heart and appreciate it. Some people are happy to kill in the name of their beliefs, some are immoral because they believe it is condoned by their beliefs. Many even accept or choose what beliefs fit with their lifestyle, custom, or nature. Very few will suffer for what they believe.

[Caid Ivik]

"Religion" and "faith" are two distinct things. In many religions, pain is a form of faith, to be sure...

[ps501]

"Religion" and "faith" are two distinct things. In many religions, pain is a form of faith, to be sure...

Opus Dei anyone?

Self-organizing does not mean being controlled by others. Brahmans have no control over them and they still follow the traditions and are improving its philosophy. Well, there is a "creative idea", which is typical for any type of organization, but to say this "idea" is controlling minds of the followers, that is illogical. To put up acrikuistic argument, define "free thinking".

First I am not an expert on Brahmans. My belief is that if any group becomes self-organized, and then [appoints, elects, gives] a person the the power to define the scope/aspect/beliefs of the group, and then all them members now accept that "leaders" opinion without any real question - that is in the heart of one of my arguements.

[Egeides]

About opiates...

Some guy comes, he has a PhD in civil engineering and gives a lecture in front of a group of villagers in the middle of China desperately in need of a bridge. They just do as he says to get the bridge done, none of them making independent research (for lack of time, belief that it is not needed, TV is more interesting...).

It seems like they expect someone else to be competent here and rely on him. Would you believe that this is necessarily wrong (on religious fields included)? Are they worshiping science and its "priest" blindly?

[Edric O]

My second comment is I don't believe the church does enough to help people

[ps501]

About opiates...

Some guy comes, he has a PhD in civil engineering and gives a lecture in front of a group of villagers in the middle of China desperately in need of a bridge. They just do as he says to get the bridge done, none of them making independent research (for lack of time, belief that it is not needed, TV is more interesting...).

It seems like they expect someone else to be competent here and rely on him. Would you believe that this is necessarily wrong (on religious fields included)? Are they worshiping science and its "priest" blindly?

So if they need a single bridge and take this expert on "faith" there isn't really anything to be said about this.  But after building one bridge each week the same way over and over again... in years to come, long after the PhD has left, if no one questions why they do the things that they do, then yes, they are now a group mentality without origional thought.

[ps501]

The problem with selling the massive wealth of the Catholic Church is that it would be a one-time deal - once you've sold it and gave the money to the poor, it's gone, and you have a poor Church that can't help anyone any more. It would be far better if they were to build a museum and put all those works of art on display, and use the money paid by visitors to help the poor around the world.

Or from the sale built an on going trust to help the poor.

[Caid Ivik]

About the date of Christmas, latest Ratzinger's book is about it  ;)

First I am not an expert on Brahmans. My belief is that if any group becomes self-organized, and then [appoints, elects, gives] a person the the power to define the scope/aspect/beliefs of the group, and then all them members now accept that "leaders" opinion without any real question - that is in the heart of one of my arguements.  As soon as that control has been given and blindly followed - then the masses are no longer acting as an individual and are now acting with a single group mentality.  It doesn't matter if your a branch dividan in Waco Texas, or a radical terrorist in the middle east.  Same concept applies.  My future (after death) will be greatly rewarded by the Supreme Being if I do this XXXXX.

secondly I believe two things.  That man has free will (or as you put it free thinking).  And that Free will is a myth and does not exist.  (that is one of my favorte topics to debate, and I happily will sit on either side of that debate)  New Thread?  (of course my second favorite topic is is Man inherently evil or good)

With faith-pain relation I ment it in a stoic sense, that perception of pain is in its core illusive as well.

Inside Church (dh Roman Catholic Church), we cannot talk generally about neither autocratic nor individualistic organization, as in latin America or Africa have priests much larger power over believers' thinking than ie in France. However, it was created long ago by self-organizing, not by authority. Christianity is based on love, and a group as itself cannot love, only individual can do so. With moral materialism, it is a side effect, psychologically could be found in any human action.

Free will is the freedom of stance. Even if you cannot act, you can always disagree. That level is the basis of morale, as no group or authority can control it.

[ps501]

So... He's waiving the 5 year waiting period for sainthood for Pope John Paul...  I'm seeing that he's not "Gods Watch Dog Afterall".  Bending the rules is hardly a good thing for an ultra conserative pontiff.... Unless perhaps he doesn't think he has 5 years to live.  I always wonder about the motives behind ones actions.

[Caid Ivik]

Perhaps the label of "ultraconservativism" is just a medial excrement.