Whimsical Phil
Ninja School will help you
MrAngryFace said:
Coincidence?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
BREAKING: The Pope's condition is failing ...
- Thread starter Hollywood
- Start date
- Status
Coincidence?
Loki - typical response, way too long-winded and analytical. And furthermore, you missed pretty much the basic point I was making. We should most certainly respect his accomplishments. But I really don't feel like his intentions are exceptionally greater than anyone else's, ok? Look, Francisco Pizarro probably thought he was making humanity better, and we certainly don't respect him for that. I disagree with a great deal of what the Pope did and said, and because of that, I don't agree that we need to respect his drive to "better" humanity. Maybe if my vision of a "better" humanity meshed more perfectly with his, then yah, I could accept it. But I do think he achieved a number of admirable things, which I will respect when he finally passes.
Edit: edited for a less "controversial" historical figure that people wouldn't bitch about me comparing the Pope to.
Edit: edited for a less "controversial" historical figure that people wouldn't bitch about me comparing the Pope to.
ManaByte said:
fucking eh, the point I was making is that just because someone is working to "better" humanity in their vision doesn't make it inherently right. I knew there was a reason I left this thread, I shouldn't expect anything more from a bunch of fundies to take every comment I make out of context and attach some sort of negative connotation to it.
brooklyngooner
Member
I'm not going to jump in this argument, but this kind of thing annoys me: he's not directly comparing the Pope to Hitler. Drop the O'Reilly mentality.
I don't see how they can manage to get this wrong.... When the pope dies don't they ring that bell in italy (dunno what it's called) to tell everyone? Now if the bell didn't ring, why tell everyone he's dead........ That's why ermmmmmmm stupid. :-/
*could be completely wrong on this*
*could be completely wrong on this*
ManDudeChild
Member
Loki, The man gave up his personal possestions for EVERYTHING in the Vatican...kinda sweet deal.
Although there are some things that he could be applauded for, there is an equal number of things of which he'll have to do some serious explaining to God about in a couple of hours...
He called homosexuality "a new ideology of evil". He compared abortion to the Holocaust. He allowed numersous preists accused of molestation to be "reassigned" where they would molest again and he was against condom use because they "promote" promescuity (not to mention the spread of AIDS) and
Although there are some things that he could be applauded for, there is an equal number of things of which he'll have to do some serious explaining to God about in a couple of hours...
He called homosexuality "a new ideology of evil". He compared abortion to the Holocaust. He allowed numersous preists accused of molestation to be "reassigned" where they would molest again and he was against condom use because they "promote" promescuity (not to mention the spread of AIDS) and
Nerevar said:
You've entirely missed the point, particularly re: the irrelevance of his particular doctrinal stances. I did not miss yours, however. Hopefully this response is succinct and "atypical" enough for you.
EDIT:
Also, I never said that his "intentions" were any greater than anyone else's, only that all such intentions, and the actions and service that spring from them, are to be respected to a reasonable degree (read: one need not venerate him en toto).
3rdman said:
Read my post again and try to understand what I am saying. You'll NEVER agree with every thought or position another man has, whether it's a powerful man or an average one. Does that mean that no men, or their altruistic actions and service, are to be respected? Hardly.
Loki said:
You're post is basically a proposition to accept all the good things he has done while ignoring the bad. I don't want to get into a bash-fest of Catholic doctrine because I feel it would be disrespectful. But you cannot seperate the good from the bad in terms of the intentions of humanitarian work, and I personally feel that the doctrine he has tried his hardest to spread contains equally amounts of negative things as well. I guess this is where you and I disagree, I would offer more respect to an individual who I felt was working purely under the auspices of building up the infrastructure of poor African nations or educating farmers in third world countries. I will admire the good things he has done for the world as a whole, however I will not inherently respect him for his work towards "bettering humanity".
And yes, I hate how much attention we lavish on celebrities and prominent politicians when they pass away, too.
krypt0nian
Banned
Boomer said:
Especially when they deny condoms to Catholics in Africa by faith, effectively helping AIDS spread due to outdated dogma.
Please don't declare him a saint yet. It takes 3 fake miracles for that.
Nerevar, then basically that means that you can only respect those who share your exact same vision of what the world should be, down to the smallest detail. And that, to my mind, is silly and counterproductive given the fact that no man agrees with any other man on every issue. Commensurate respect can be afforded others for their noble actions/beliefs provided that we keep it in its proper perspective.
Check my edit above (post #160). If this, along with my previous posts, are not enough to get my point across, I don't know what to say. I simply feel that we should be able to recognize and respect altruism and service in and of themselves, regardless of whether we agree in every respect with the ideology of the person in question (provided that their ideology is not wholly repugnant, a la Hitler, and that the intentions animating the person are genuine and not self-serving, e.g. to attain higher office etc.). Perhaps this is a definitional issue, and what you are defining as "accomplishments" (which you can admit you respect) I am defining/framing somewhat differently. I dunno. But anyway...I have nothing more to say, really.
Not at all. Misrepresentations like this are why I feel you've misunderstood me. Maybe you simply didn't read my entire "long-winded" post.
Check my edit above (post #160). If this, along with my previous posts, are not enough to get my point across, I don't know what to say. I simply feel that we should be able to recognize and respect altruism and service in and of themselves, regardless of whether we agree in every respect with the ideology of the person in question (provided that their ideology is not wholly repugnant, a la Hitler, and that the intentions animating the person are genuine and not self-serving, e.g. to attain higher office etc.). Perhaps this is a definitional issue, and what you are defining as "accomplishments" (which you can admit you respect) I am defining/framing somewhat differently. I dunno. But anyway...I have nothing more to say, really.
Not at all. Misrepresentations like this are why I feel you've misunderstood me. Maybe you simply didn't read my entire "long-winded" post.
midnightguy
Member
World waits as reports conflict on Pope
Update: La Repubblica: 'The Pope has lost consciousness. There is no more hope...' Jazeera: Pope dead... Most recent Vatican bulletin cites "more and more serious conditions..." CNN's newsroom has buzzed with reports of Pope's death all morning. Earlier, citing Italian media, CNN reported death, but since retracted... Cardinal to mass: "Pontiff is seeing and touching our Lord. The gates of heaven are open..." Developing...
http://www.rawstory.com/
Update: La Repubblica: 'The Pope has lost consciousness. There is no more hope...' Jazeera: Pope dead... Most recent Vatican bulletin cites "more and more serious conditions..." CNN's newsroom has buzzed with reports of Pope's death all morning. Earlier, citing Italian media, CNN reported death, but since retracted... Cardinal to mass: "Pontiff is seeing and touching our Lord. The gates of heaven are open..." Developing...
http://www.rawstory.com/
Loki said:
I might take exception to this. One single act of hate would be enough for me to disolve a friendship or to oust a political leader. Here we have the Pope (the supposed speaker of God of Earth) proclaiming that homosexuality is evil. I may not agree with the man's personal beliefs but when those beliefs become doctrine, there is a problem. Nixon, as big a bigot as he was, never got on TV or pass laws that were racially motivated.
Although I understand where you're coming from, the mere mention of the Pope automatically brings praise of humanitarian efforts without the slightest bit of proof for such praise. So, forgive my "lack of faith", but I can't recall a single, pure humanitarian act that wasn't somehow created to further the Church's doctrine or policy. When was the last time the Vatican donated money for Aids research, Hmmm?
Boomer said:
I basically agree with this (since it's basically a rephrasing of what I've been saying in this thread), though I take issue with the "whatever their motives" are comment-- if one's motives are inappropriate, it entirely changes the moral worth of their actions imo.
(Emphasis mine)
Are you serious? Do some reading; I'm not about to do your legwork.
Regarding the rest of your post, I had a substantial reply typed out that I just deleted-- I don't want to sidetrack the discussion, because such conversations tend to veer off into unrelated issues. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Again, keep in mind that I have never said that one should necessarily respect the Pope and his life in totality, but only certain worthy aspects of it which (I hope) we can all agree are noble. There is a certain measure of respect that should be given to those who partake in such actions and who are animated by such altruistic beliefs-- this does not mean that he should be revered, so if that's what you feel I'm saying, I'd ask that you reconsider.
I guess I'm just different from many of you in that way; I'm generally able to separate out and appreciate certain aspects of people even when I disagree with them-- no matter how strong that disagreement may be (again, unless it's something ridiculous, such as advocating violence against a certain group, for instance etc.). That's just how I am as a person. I disagree (staunchly, even) with people here many times, but I do respect many posters here. I'm the same way in real life. One does not have to tolerate or condone a person's actions or beliefs in order to respect and appreciate certain other of their actions/beliefs provided that we keep it in perspective and avoid giving undue respect/reverence where it may not be deserved. Usually.
Red Scarlet
Member
The Perdue chicken guy died yesterday too, he looks like the Pope also.
Fresh Prince
Banned
Olimario needs to stop the Catholic bashing :lol
It'll be interesting who takes over. There was a Brazillian Cardinal whose ideas sound strangely similars to Raoul Duke's :lol . An African possibility (never happen within the next 50 years IMO) and tons of Italians (seems set that the next Pope will be Italian).
It'll be interesting who takes over. There was a Brazillian Cardinal whose ideas sound strangely similars to Raoul Duke's :lol . An African possibility (never happen within the next 50 years IMO) and tons of Italians (seems set that the next Pope will be Italian).
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
I'm seriously pissed off. How the fuck could a humanitarian like Pope John Paul II die but assbags like Ashlee Simpson and Star Jones stay alive?
Whenever you die, R.I.P. You will be missed.
Whenever you die, R.I.P. You will be missed.
Lucky Forward
Member
I just watched NBC nightly news...it was kind of strange. They had various people remembering, "The pope was this, the pope was that..." speaking about him as though he had already passed. I realize it's just a question of timing, that his death was/is imminent, and much of the broadcast was prepared ahead of time with the expectation that he would be dead. Still, it seems strange to see him eulogized while he is still alive.
As for celibacy, I can't trust that anyone who puts themselves in such a position necessarily feels that they are forfeiting anything or much. Often the person takes that route because they have little desire for sex. Or maybe the Pope is gay and just wants to forever avoid his reality and the incriminating "Why don't you ever bring girls home?" question.Loki said:
Wow, if there is a Hell, I think I've just sealed my fate...
And lacking worldly possessions? Perhaps he could never technically say "that is mine", but you'd better believe that he was treated like a King. I'm sure very many well-off religious men would give up their private property to live like him (I'm discussing just the one consideration, exclusive of everything else involved).
I respect the Pope. I don't know if I'll mourn his death, but I definitely think highly of him. That said, I don't see him as a terribly exceptional person (besides his standing), and for similar reasons to what Nerevar said.
Star Power
Member
The Experiment said:
Hmm, maybe because Ashlee Simpson and Star Jones aren't EIGHTY-FOUR FUCKING YEARS OLD WITH MULTIPLE CHRONIC ILLNESSES.
idiot.
Soc, I don't think you can say in every instance that those who take vows of celibacy due to their faith are possessed of low sex drives or are possibly gay (though you were perhaps joking regarding the latter ). Could that be the case sometimes? Sure. But I'm reasonably certain that there are sexually healthy people who commit to a celibate life because they view other things-- namely, their faith-- as more important. It's all a matter of degree, really; to most of us, there are things more important than sex in our lives (hopefully Kinesis and Megafoo Chavez won't read this ), and though few of us would willingly choose to remain celibate for the sake of these "other things", I'm pretty sure at least half of us would do so if we were forced to choose between them (and a priest is essentially "forced" in these matters due to tradition).
I personally disagree with the Catholic doctrine of sacerdotal celibacy-- I don't think that God intended it that way (and yes, I'm aware of the biblical verses in support of it, before anyone goes off citing scripture), though if one chose it on their own, it could be viewed as noble; I don't think it should be a precondition for priesthood in any sect, however.
EDIT: Oh, and as regards the material possession stuff, the thing to keep in mind is that nobody starts out in the priesthood expecting to (or aspiring to) become the Pope. So I'm sure he didn't say to himself when he was 20 years old (or whatever), "hey, I may live like a pauper now, but in 50 years I'll be livin' large!"
). Could that be the case sometimes? Sure. But I'm reasonably certain that there are sexually healthy people who commit to a celibate life because they view other things-- namely, their faith-- as more important. It's all a matter of degree, really; to most of us, there are things more important than sex in our lives (hopefully Kinesis and Megafoo Chavez won't read this ), and though few of us would willingly choose to remain celibate for the sake of these "other things", I'm pretty sure at least half of us would do so if we were forced to choose between them (and a priest is essentially "forced" in these matters due to tradition). I personally disagree with the Catholic doctrine of sacerdotal celibacy-- I don't think that God intended it that way (and yes, I'm aware of the biblical verses in support of it, before anyone goes off citing scripture
), though if one chose it on their own, it could be viewed as noble; I don't think it should be a precondition for priesthood in any sect, however.EDIT: Oh, and as regards the material possession stuff, the thing to keep in mind is that nobody starts out in the priesthood expecting to (or aspiring to) become the Pope. So I'm sure he didn't say to himself when he was 20 years old (or whatever), "hey, I may live like a pauper now, but in 50 years I'll be livin' large!"
If you're replying to me, then please read more carefully.WedgeX said:
I don't think so, either. That's why I didn't...Loki said:Soc, I don't think you can say in every instance that those who take vows of celibacy due to their faith are possessed of low sex drives or are possibly gay (though you were perhaps joking regarding the latter
But it remains that I should not be expected to be impressed when the circumstances surrounding his decision are completely uncertain. You were right in that context because it IS a notable sacrifice that Nerevar seemed to forget, but I just don't think it's necessarily a significant one.Loki said:
*If he has a normal sex drive and practices celibacy in order to be a great, altruistic person -- much respect... though I'm one to believe that we're all ultimately egoists and serve ourselves, even through serving others (an argument I'm sure you've heard before and probably disagree with considering)
*If he has a normal sex drive and practices celibacy because he has a great amount of faith -- that's different for me... since I'm agnostic, I don't really consider faith as something to respect. In fact, I see it as a flaw.
How come you think that God would wish for one thing when the Bible would indicate otherwise? (this is me being curious, not necessarily critical)Loki said:I personally disagree with the Catholic doctrine of sacerdotal celibacy-- I don't think that God intended it that way (and yes, I'm aware of the biblical verses in support of it, before anyone goes off citing scripture
I can actually understand the concept behind having priests and such people remaining celibate since abstinence before marriage is doctrinal (and has its own philosophy - arbitrary births) and, for instance, a Pope with a family could not devote his life to the position with various other distractions and commitments as a consequence.
Yep, true, I forgot that. I suppose, then, that it comes down to faith (or the promise of security??), which I don't find admirable.Loki said:Oh, and as regards the material possession stuff, the thing to keep in mind is that nobody starts out in the priesthood expecting to (or aspiring to) become the Pope. So I'm sure he didn't say to himself when he was 20 years old (or whatever), "hey, I may live like a pauper now, but in 50 years I'll be livin' large!"
Fair enough, Socreges, and I have much too much reading to do to continue this discussion.
Yup, heard it. And you're correct-- I don't really agree with it (or at least the way it's framed), though I won't get into why here.
Because the Bible can be interpreted to indicate otherwise even though based on my own readings and reflection, I do not feel that God intended celibacy as part of the natural order of things, even for his servants. You're basically asking me to explain why there are dozens of Christian sects, you know. I follow what I believe personally.
Oh, I can understand the logic also, especially for the higher offices-- I just don't agree with it.
Socreges said:
Yup, heard it. And you're correct-- I don't really agree with it (or at least the way it's framed), though I won't get into why here.
Because the Bible can be interpreted to indicate otherwise even though based on my own readings and reflection, I do not feel that God intended celibacy as part of the natural order of things, even for his servants. You're basically asking me to explain why there are dozens of Christian sects, you know.
I follow what I believe personally.Oh, I can understand the logic also, especially for the higher offices-- I just don't agree with it.
so what do you think the chances are that the next Pope will be an American, I used to think it would never happen, but now I think there is at least a 5% chance, the way most of europe seems to be apathetic towards religion it wouldn't surprise me if the next Pope was from outside of Europe.
Fresh Prince
Banned
0%. As long as America is still a super power. From what I've been hearing (from Vatican 'experts') it will be European (most likely Italian) with a short tenure (ie someone already old) so that the Church can take 'stock and focus'. There's a liberal\socialist priest from Brazil and a conservative African who has made inroads with Islam up in the mix.max_cool said:
3rdman said:
I like how the only "pure humanitarian act" that you can think of is aids research... How pathetic of you. All the work that has been done in Africa, India, South and Central America, just to name a few, all of that isn't worth mentioning or acknowledgement. Anyone remotely honest intellectually could have looked up the vast amount of info showing involvement by the catholic churches and groups in providing humanitarian aid all over the world.
But of course your apparent agenda is one based on a response to the horrific act of the pope responding to something based on his fundamental religious beliefs. OMG NOS. wtf is humanitarian work done by thousands of priests and the many catholic aid groups throughout the world, something not worth mentioning or even researching, when compared to the horrific act of him following his conscience in respect to the guidelines found in what he believes to be true, that being the bible.
Where is the high-minded sense of diversity by the gay community and its supporters now? As if somehow the only way to have "true" diversity is to have everyone agree with the moral judgements of everyone else and never voice or follow what they believe in? I love how this is selectively applied here. Where is moral and cultural relativism now?
-btw, I am not nor have I ever been a supporter or follower of the catholic church.
Uter said:
First of all, I have no agenda. You are reading my response to Loki out of context. His arguement was that it was unfair to decry a single act and it would be more wise to judge a man by the totality of his life. I took the opposite and said that a single act COULD be enough to "judge" a man. I took the time to list some of the "not so rosy" aspect of his papacy to further that arguement. Obviously, you missed that.
Now, as for his acts of humanitarianism...Don't misunderstand me. I said that I can't think of a case of true humanitarianism, meaning ME (not you, ME) and I still can't. To me, this would be something along the lines of Mother Theresa caring for the children of Calcutta...that's pure. If you feel that the Pope should take the credit for his minions, well...who am I to argue.
Latly, you seemed to take great exception at what I mentioned regarding the Pope's "fundamental religous beliefs" concerning homosexuals. You then wrote OMG NOS. I may not be gay, but do you really have to be to feel the sting of what is considered doctrine? This, to me, is indefensable. Say what you want, argue whatever point you feel would better explain it, and feel free to use visual aids. You'll need all the help you can get to defend it. Because unlike any other spiritual leader, the Pope has the greatest of powers in terms of influence and visibility and to use that power to describe the "evil" of one's genetic make-up is cruel and abusive.
3rdman said:
Not to nitpick, but that's not what I said. I said that one does NOT have to look at, agree with, or respect the totality of a person's life/views/deeds in order to respect the good (service) they've done and accord it its proper degree of respect in and of itself.
Loki said:
I haven't followed this discussion at all, just skimmed a little and read this last post. Pretty interesting... Do you respect ayatollah Khomeini for leading to overthrow the Iranian shah, a dictator? Or al-Qaeda veterans who fought the communists in Afghanistan? I'm not comparing them to the pope, but a person's life/views/deeds makes them what they are, and personally I don't respect a good deed if the motive was sinister or selfish like serving your religion in some way. I mean I'm sure Michael Jackson would be the first to donate to, say for example, a UN drive to help 3rd world children but it's pretty clear why.
Again, I'm not really comparing the pope to terrorists or whatever (I think his calls for piece as opposed to 'jihad' and 'death to infidels' puts him WAY above them) but things like saying gays are evil put everything he did in a new perspective and DO influence any respect I or anybody might have for any good things he did.
- Status