# Pope to resign



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Pope Benedict XVI said Monday that he will resign at the end of February because he no longer has the strength to fulfill the duties of his office, news services reported.

Pope Benedict XVI to resign, citing age and waning energy - The Washington Post


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

I just read this.. at least the Pope has the logical to fast track the selection while he is a live, so time is not lost to his death and observation. I give him credit for that.

Seems a Canadian is on the short list.. - would be nice but not holding my breathe on that to happen during my life time..But I guess we shall see.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Right before easter? He must be really ill.


----------



## Paul82 (Sep 19, 2007)

heavyall said:


> Right before easter? He must be really ill.


My thoughts exactly, they obviously want to have the new pope selected and in place in time for Easter celebrations. My guess is he's already too sick/weak to be able to preform them. There is quite a lot to do at that time of year and I imagine it would be rather exhausting if possible for him to perform all the duties of pope. 

Personally I had an odd sense of déjà vu when reading of this that reminded me of Steve's resignation, anyone who knows anything about either man knows they would not resign unless they were no longer physically able to do the job. Does not bode well for the current popes health.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Interesting, but Queen Elizabeth II has been queen for 6 popes (Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI) and 11 US Presidents. I am certainly no monarchist, but you have to give her credit for her staying power.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

heavyall said:


> Right before easter? He must be really ill.


I have a sense or a feeling there is more to this than we think and know.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Interesting, but Queen Elizabeth II has been queen for 6 popes (Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI) and 11 US Presidents. I am certainly no monarchist, but you have to give her credit for her staying power.


Would you give the throne to Chuck?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

What a wimp this pope is.



Joker Eh said:


> I have a sense or a feeling there is more to this than we think and know.


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

BigDL said:


> What a wimp this pope is.
> 
> My thoughts exactly.


Probably the butlers fault


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

kps said:


> Would you give the throne to Chuck?




I would be a better pope .............. at least I am the same faith as Jesus was when he was born. 

Just in case, I have sent an email to the Vatican, stating "If nominated I will not run ... If elected, I will not serve." If it worked for Gen. Sherman it should work for me.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

He's no Jean-Paul II, this guy.

And now, on to the most secretive election process ever....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sonal said:


> He's no Jean-Paul II, this guy.
> 
> And now, on to the most secretive election process ever....


Irish bookmakers today put Canadian Cardinal Marc Ouellet as the leading contender to succeed Pope Benedict XVI.

At 5-2 odds early Monday, someone betting two euros ($2.68 Cdn) on Ouellet replacing Benedict would win five euros ($6.70) if the Quebecer were elected at the papal conclave, Bloomberg News reported.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> I would be a better pope .............. at least I am the same faith as Jesus was when he was born.


 Did you follow His stats and follow His new teammates after He was traded?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Did you follow His stats and follow His new teammates after He was traded?


No, I strayed from the flock.  Still, I am happy with who I am and try to live my life in balance with my own beliefs and with others. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> I would be a better pope .............. at least I am the same faith as Jesus was when he was born.
> 
> Just in case, I have sent an email to the Vatican, stating "If nominated I will not run ... If elected, I will not serve." If it worked for Gen. Sherman it should work for me.


Well, Christmas mass in Hebrew as opposed to Latin, may have add an interesting ring to it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

kps said:


> Well, Christmas mass in Hebrew as opposed to Latin, may have add an interesting ring to it.


True. Shalom, my friend.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Joker Eh said:


> I have a sense or a feeling there is more to this than we think and know.


Yes between the butler's good work, the Nazi allegations, and the hiding of all kinds of misdeeds by various clergy, this pope was beginning to smell like a rat. 8 years of turbulence. 

Time for the hot tub.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Dr.G. said:


> Interesting, but Queen Elizabeth II has been queen for 6 popes (Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI) and 11 US Presidents. I am certainly no monarchist, but you have to give her credit for her staying power.


And what power would that be ?!? 
Other than waving her hand around and travel the world on some one else's dime..

Pope actually has real powers and duties. 
Sorry not royalist.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Sonal said:


> He's no Jean-Paul II, this guy.
> 
> And now, on to the most secretive election process ever....


I remember when John Paul was elected pope how miffed George and Ringo were.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> I would be a better pope .............. at least I am the same faith as Jesus was when he was born.


You did not build a church on the Rock.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Forgive them Dr. G. For they know not what they do.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> You did not build a church on the Rock.


I have the spot ..................


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Forgive them Dr. G. For they know not what they do.


All is forgiven. Love one another and be kind to all living things.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> All is forgiven. Love one another and be kind to all living things.


Does that include mosquitoes?


----------



## partsguy (Jul 24, 2012)

He wants to be the Pope, not the Dali Lama.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> Does that include mosquitoes?





partsguy said:


> He wants to be the Pope, not the Dali Lama.


Well, while I don't want to be the Pope, I will draw the line on mosquitoes and flies. Be kind to spiders, however ............... as well as small children and doxie puppies ... even when they get messy. Sometimes Life will leave you feeling as if you are all alone in the world, adrift in a rowboat, but there are people who love and understand you. Thus, look for the rainbow moments in your life and smile. Paix, mes amis.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Dr.G. said:


> I have the spot ..................


there are laws to prevent speaking the truth.. and/or marketing smear teams.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I was never a big fan of John Ratzinger aka Pope Benedict. He was no John Paul II. He was known as the enforcer. Took the church a little too far into the dark ages, in my opinion. At least he had the wisdom to retire sooner rather than later. I certainly hope his successor has more progressive and ecumenical leanings. It's been a long time since John Paul I, the one month guy, who was the great RC hope for progress.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I appreciated Ratzinger for having the guts to stand up for what the church actually teaches, whether that is palatable to people who do not accept those teachings or not.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

macintosh doctor said:


> there are laws to prevent speaking the truth.. and/or marketing smear teams.


Well, I have the place/location selected ............ is that better? As for speaking the truth, "Veritas vos liberabit". Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I also appreciated Ratzinger for being so true to Catholicism that it like caused more and more people to question their faith in it. I hope they choose and even more backwards out of touch one to continue the job.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Better not be the Canadian candidate, if that is your wish (and I agree 100% ..... see if Torquemada is available, or perhaps Michael Palin).

Everyone knows we are too wishy-washy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMouse said:


> Better not be the Canadian candidate, if that is your wish (and I agree 100% ..... see if Torquemada is available, or perhaps Michael Palin).
> 
> Everyone knows we are too wishy-washy.


I would agree. They'd be better off with one of the guys from Africa.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Well, I have the place/location selected ............ is that better? As for speaking the truth, "Veritas vos liberabit". Paix, mon ami.


The Truth will make you a Liberal? That's what I always thought!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> The Truth will make you a Liberal?


Only if you're a communist!


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Labels, labels, everywhere a label

Blocking out the thinking, breaking my mind

Think this, don't think that, can't you read the label


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)




----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

iMouse said:


> Labels, labels, everywhere a label
> 
> Blocking out the thinking, breaking my mind
> 
> Think this, don't think that, can't you read the label


It's their last refuge, even if definitions are of little concern. :lmao:


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

iMouse said:


> Labels, labels, everywhere a label
> 
> Blocking out the thinking, breaking my mind
> 
> Think this, don't think that, can't you read the label


Some people need to label everyone else in a misguided attempt to figure themselves out.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Some people need to label everyone else in a misguided attempt to figure themselves out.


When you see that sort of thing, you just know it's a result of their own insecurity.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

If they can't categorize you, they can't control you.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

iMouse said:


> If they can't categorize you, they can't control you.


Right. They'll hiss 'communists!' However if someone were to toss 'nazi!' They become incredibly indignant. Neither label of course have any relevance and is only designed to insult or inflame the posters thread. But it's within the rules!

Par for the course on this one.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

You guys should think more before you type. 
As if you don't label people. I could easily go back through these threads and find you all doing the same thing. Pot, meet Kettle.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Generally in response to the bike riding left wing pinko liberal fornicating in the streets baby killin dope head slams, sure.

But if the recent push for civility were to actually work then we need to dispense with the flame throwers too. Even if it did seem within the rules.

More than happy to oblige.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> You guys should think more before you type.
> As if you don't label people. I could easily go back through these threads and find you all doing the same thing. Pot, meet Kettle.


You guys are killin' me. It's a joke based on this old riddle:

Q: Who can get married and become a millionaire overnight?
A: A billionaire.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

In light of past history, it's sort of like crying wolf.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> You guys should think more before you type.
> As if you don't label people. I could easily go back through these threads and find you all doing the same thing. Pot, meet Kettle.


Pot-stirrer! Stuff-disturber!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't consider MacGuiver really, a 'stuff-disturber'. I may have hotly disagreed with his opinions, and perhaps find them quite disturbing at times personally, but I don't think he has ever really gone there on a consistent basis.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Couldn't have said it any better than old Luckovich


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

fjnmusic said:


> Pot-stirrer! Stuff-disturber!


I just like to shine a light on "stuff" when I see it.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Macfury said:


> I appreciated Ratzinger for having the guts to stand up for what the church actually teaches, whether that is palatable to people who do not accept those teachings or not.


if you are comparing RC to other religions [ like Islam - where it is not open 'modern day' interpretations ] and your not being sarcastic i will agree with you..

it is amazing that religions can be attempted to be open to modern day 'values'
but the US constitution in particular right to bar arms it is steed fast with no interpretations or even attempt modern day values.. 

That is what i find amusing


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> if you are comparing RC to other religions [ like Islam - where it is not open 'modern day' interpretations ] and your not being sarcastic i will agree with you..
> 
> it is amazing that religions can be attempted to be open to modern day 'values'
> but the US constitution in particular right to bar arms it is steed fast with no interpretations or even attempt modern day values..
> ...


I don't believe either the RC church or the Constitution "needs" to change just because a new group finds the strictures of one and the freedoms of the other uncomfortable. Modern day "values" fluctuate like a like a thermometer. Better that institutions simply state their own values and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

I offer a solution to the Vatican's fears of 'modernizing'.

Wayne LaPierre for Pope.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I don't believe either the RC church or the Constitution "needs" to change just because a new group finds the strictures of one and the freedoms of the other uncomfortable. Modern day "values" fluctuate like a like a thermometer. Better that institutions simply state their own values and let the chips fall where they may.


Horsepuckey, Macfury. The RC is not so non-fluctuating as you make it sound. If they were, there would still be the Crusades, witch burning and the mass would be in Latin. If they went back to the roots, priests would be allowed to marry (St. Peter, the first pope, had a wife and so did many others), men could beat women with impunity, and if you go back far enough, a man could have as many wives as he could afford. Exactly which parts of this religion do you think have not changed over the centuries? Since before the Council of Nicea in 325 AD? Since before Vatican II?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Horsepuckey, Macfury. The RC is not so non-fluctuating as you make it sound. If they were, there would still be the Crusades, witch burning and the mass would be in Latin. If they went back to the roots, priests would be allowed to marry (St. Peter, the first pope, had a wife and so did many others), men could beat women with impunity, and if you go back far enough, a man could have as many wives as he could afford. Exactly which parts of this religion do you think have not changed over the centuries? Since before the Council of Nicea in 325 AD? Since before Vatican II?


Facts can only derail a discussions about religion.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Horsepuckey, Macfury. The RC is not so non-fluctuating as you make it sound. If they were, there would still be the Crusades, witch burning and the mass would be in Latin. If they went back to the roots, priests would be allowed to marry (St. Peter, the first pope, had a wife and so did many others), men could beat women with impunity, and if you go back far enough, a man could have as many wives as he could afford. Exactly which parts of this religion do you think have not changed over the centuries? Since before the Council of Nicea in 325 AD? Since before Vatican II?


I suspect he already knows this, but well.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Horsepuckey, Macfury. The RC is not so non-fluctuating as you make it sound. If they were, there would still be the Crusades, witch burning and the mass would be in Latin. If they went back to the roots, priests would be allowed to marry (St. Peter, the first pope, had a wife and so did many others), men could beat women with impunity, and if you go back far enough, a man could have as many wives as he could afford. Exactly which parts of this religion do you think have not changed over the centuries? Since before the Council of Nicea in 325 AD? Since before Vatican II?


I don't expect them _neve_r to change. I'm merely stating that the RC church should not be expected to conform to the lax values of the community in direct opposition to the values of the church. A church should lead on values, not follow them.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Which lax values? The ones that allow people to have unprotected sex in an age of aids, naively believing abstinence will solve things, or the ones that overlook pedophile priests?

It's confusing.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Which lax values? The ones that allow people to have unprotected sex in an age of aids, naively believing abstinence will solve things, or the ones that overlook pedophile priests?
> 
> It's confusing.


Resigning Pope No Longer Has Strength To Lead Church Backward | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> Resigning Pope No Longer Has Strength To Lead Church Backward | The Onion - America's Finest News Source





> “While I’m proud of the strides the Church has made over the past eight years, from thwarting AIDS-prevention efforts in Africa to failing to punish or even admit to decades of sexual abuse of children at the hands of clergy, it has become evident to me that, in this rapidly evolving world, I now lack the capacity to continue guiding this faith back centuries.”


:lmao::lmao: :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> Resigning Pope No Longer Has Strength To Lead Church Backward | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


_The Onion_ is really funny, generally, but that article needed a second editor. The delivery needs to be more ironic and delivered in subtext. I suspect it was rushed.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

groovetube said:


> Which lax values? The ones that allow people to have unprotected sex in an age of aids, naively believing abstinence will solve things, or the ones that overlook pedophile priests?
> 
> It's confusing.


Actually abstinence or even just monogamy would solve those problems. No multiple sex partners, no sexual transmission of disease. Simple logic really but most people view the opposite, (or the same sex) not so much as people worthy of dignity and respect but as objects for their sexual gratification so its not a popular proposal. 
This lax morality is the engine of social disorder.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Actually abstinence or even just monogamy would solve those problems. No multiple sex partners, no sexual transmission of disease. Simple logic really but most people view the opposite, (or the same sex) not so much as people worthy of dignity and respect but as objects for their sexual gratification so its not a popular proposal.
> This lax morality is the engine of social disorder.


Well, that seems to be working wonders!

How about some sanity. Teaching morality, or abstinence, but also recognizing reality and the facts of the aids epidemic. And that people's lives are at stake, many innocent lives, who are monogamous.

The insistence of abstinence and monogamy over recognizing the realities of the disease, is very, very irresponsible, if not downright malicious.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift - Telegraph


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Well, that seems to be working wonders!
> 
> How about some sanity. Teaching morality, or abstinence, but also recognizing reality and the facts of the aids epidemic. And that people's lives are at stake, many innocent lives, who are monogamous.
> 
> The insistence of abstinence and monogamy over recognizing the realities of the disease, is very, very irresponsible, if not downright malicious.


Not to mention contrary to biology and our natural instincts.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Not to mention contrary to biology and our natural instincts.


So is non-violence.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

fjnmusic said:


> Not to mention contrary to biology and our natural instincts.


The orthodox faith does wonders.. It allows priest to marry and have children..
seems to do wonders on the moral and keeps kids safe..
but sadly it was having to convert to RC, so we can have our kids go to catholic school, if RC was more like orthodox things would be much easier for everyone.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


> The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift - Telegraph


That's a small start, and just shows how hard reality can force organizations to step back and rethink their policies. Perhaps some of the followers would do well to think the same way.

I'm all for believing what you want, and living your life with those freedoms. But it becomes a life and death issue when it comes to matters like this, in particular continents like Africa. The whole "just say no" has in the past been a colossal failure.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

groovetube said:


> That's a small start, and just shows how hard reality can force organizations to step back and rethink their policies. Perhaps some of the followers would do well to think the same way.
> 
> I'm all for believing what you want, and living your life with those freedoms. But it becomes a life and death issue when it comes to matters like this, in particular countries like Africa. The whole "just say no" has in the past been a colossal failure.


The thing is, I'm not sure that the Pope isn't wrong here in thinking that condoms are barking up the wrong tree.

Friend of mine was in Tanzania recently on a research trip--she's particularly interested in public health and spread of disease. Condoms, even when readily available, just don't get used... this is largely cultural. Even people who know better, like doctors (many of whom trained in the Western world) just don't worry about it, just as things like blood splatter during surgery, while dealing with accidents or trauma situations, etc., is not something that gets fussed over... and this in an area where a very large portion of the population has HIV/AIDS.

From what she observed, it's not that Tanzanians are uneducated (certainly the doctors aren't) but that HIV/AIDS is not seen as the deadly killer it is here.... you can contract HIV, live a pretty normal life for many years, particularly if you have access to medications, life goes on without a lot of change. So sure, getting it may suck, but it's not seen as a death sentence. It's very different, than say, malaria where you contract it, you get sick and in many cases, you just die.... Unlike HIV/AIDS, this is seen as a really immediate problem.

So mosquito nets to prevent malaria make a lot of sense to people, because people die of very quickly of malaria, but condoms to prevent HIV seem a little pointless, since you can live a long time with HIV. Very different worldview. 

While I don't agree with the Pope's overall position on contraception, I'm not really sure that much would change if you suddenly opened the floodgates on condoms to Africa.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


> The thing is, I'm not sure that the Pope isn't wrong here in thinking that condoms are barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> Friend of mine was in Tanzania recently on a research trip--she's particularly interested in public health and spread of disease. Condoms, even when readily available, just don't get used... this is largely cultural. Even people who know better, like doctors (many of whom trained in the Western world) just don't worry about it, just as things like blood splatter during surgery, while dealing with accidents or trauma situations, etc., is not something that gets fussed over... and this in an area where a very large portion of the population has HIV/AIDS.
> 
> ...


I have 2 sister in laws on government posts is Africa, and they tell a similar story, though somewhat more optimistic than yours. Only their perspectives not nessearily the only.

I think with that much of an uphill battle it doesn't help to have such a large religion resist this. I think it has a much larger effect than I'd like.

However, it would be unfair not to recognize much of the work done by Catholics to care for those stricken with aids. Though it seems ironic to care for them, yet for so long resist policies that would would help protect.

Even a begrudging change in position, albeit a little late, is a good example of the importance of standing up in force to such archaic and dangerous policies.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> The thing is, I'm not sure that the Pope isn't wrong here in thinking that condoms are barking up the wrong tree.


Added to that, a male cultural bias against monogamy and things become a little worse.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


> The thing is, I'm not sure that the Pope isn't wrong here in thinking that condoms are barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> SNIP
> 
> While I don't agree with the Pope's overall position on contraception, I'm not really sure that much would change if you suddenly opened the floodgates on condoms to Africa.


Further, I think the pope's position is based on religious ideas, rather than being sensible about what would actually work. From what I understand, I don't think just making condoms available is viewed as the magic pill to solve aids over there. Condoms don't help in the rampant rape either. But it would certainly be a huge help in dealing with it along with other initiatives. It isn't going to go away today.

See my earlier post about a sensible policy for the church to promote abstinence, monogamy, -and- not stand in the way of safe sex.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> I'm all for believing what you want, and living your life with those freedoms. But it becomes a life and death issue when it comes to matters like this, in particular countries like Africa.


During our debate, we should all be aware that Africa is a continent, not a country.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Condoms do not prevent the spread of HPV. Those little critters can swing on hairs like Tarzan, rendering the condom a moot point. Just sayin'.

But here's something I found really eye-opening about the Pope and Twitter. 

http://youtu.be/fDMiY6oga9Q


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> During our debate, we should all be aware that Africa is a continent, not a country.


Well thank you for your contribution! Good boy! :clap:

My mistake. Continent. Not country.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I have to say I'm surprised that the tectonic shift WRT condoms in the Catholic Church isn't getting more attention; old men don't last indefinitely, even if they wear dresses and funny hats at work all day, so the fact that he's retiring is not particularly surprising.

But this bit jumped out at me...


> While he restated the Catholic Church’s staunch objections to contraception because it believes that it interferes with the creation of life, he argued that using a condom to preserve life and avoid death could be a responsible act – even outside marriage.


So now it's okay to use a condom to avoid getting HIV, but not to avoid getting pregnant. Aren't these the people who believe their invisible sky daddy knocked someone up by magic? How can they possibly believe that their omnipotent God's Great Plan could be foiled by a bit of latex?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I have to say I'm surprised that the tectonic shift WRT condoms in the Catholic Church isn't getting more attention; old men don't last indefinitely,


Historical perspective as noted earlier in thread--the last pope NOT to die in office was six centuries ago.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

My bad; haven't kept up with the whole thread. That *is* surprising.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> How can they possibly believe that their omnipotent God's Great Plan could be foiled by a bit of latex?


Actually with 54% of women killing their unborn children in abortion clinics having been using birth control at the time they got knocked up, it seems the bandaid solutions don't live up to their promise of consequence free orgasms. It seems latex and pills aren't all that good at preventing the reproductive system from doing what it was designed to do.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

The pope took a lot of heat for his comments on condoms not being the answer to the aids crisis in Africa. However a Harvard HIV expert agreed. 

BBC - Will & Testament: The pope was right about condoms, says Harvard HIV expert



> Edward Green: What the Pope said was the distribution and marketing of condoms would not solve the problem of African Aids and that it might even exacerbate the problem. And I think it was that second comment that really set the critics off, really upset a lot of people. I can understand that, because I have worked in Aids prevention for a long time. In fact, I worked as a condom and contraceptive social marketer at the beginning of the pandemic--I was working in family planning. I am part of a group of researchers that have been looking for the behavioural antecedents to HIV prevalence decline in Africa. We now see HIV going down in about 8 or 9 countries in Africa and in every case we see a decrease in the proportion of men and women who report having more than one sex partner in the past year. So when the Pope said that the answer really lies in monogamy and martial faithfulness, that's exactly what we found empirically.


Of course one doesn't need to be an HIV expert to figure this out. A little of common sense and logical thinking will do.


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

Maybe the Pope isn't a Senators fan, and couldn't handle the fact that Siri is calling Daniel Alfredsson god. 


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Actually with 54% of women killing their unborn children in abortion clinics having been using birth control at the time they got knocked up, it seems the bandaid solutions don't live up to their promise of consequence free orgasms. It seems latex and pills aren't all that good at preventing the reproductive system from doing what it was designed to do.


See this is the sort of total lunacy that gets trotted out to further more suffering on all sides.

So, the solution them is to tell people -not- to use contraception, which will lead to even more pregnancies and more abortions?

Sounds legit to me.

We all know how well teaching abstinence works, so perhaps more education on proper contraception use and better access to them will prevent more abortions! But no, less drag our feet on the real solutions, continue to demonize and make effective contraception more difficult to obtain and repeat the same spun nonsense over and over as if it somehow justifies their position.

Study: Free birth control leads to way fewer abortions - CBS News

hello!!!

If some religious people were less interested in pushing their religious beliefs and truly interested in seeing reality and reducing the number of abortions, they would see real solutions that actually work and perhaps get behind them.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Actually with 54% of women killing their unborn children in abortion clinics having been using birth control at the time they got knocked up, it seems the bandaid solutions don't live up to their promise of *consequence free orgasms.*


I love this expression (my bold). It speaks so clearly to the religious fundamentalist's deepest fear; that someone somewhere may be having a good time. Christianity's obsession with sex has been one of it's most pathological characteristics throughout the ages, but the idea that orgasms _*should* have consequences_ just leaves me speechless. Is this were some of you get the idea that masturbating is bad?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I love this expression (my bold). It speaks so clearly to the religious fundamentalist's deepest fear; that someone somewhere may be having a good time. Christianity's obsession with sex has been one of it's most pathological characteristics throughout the ages, but the idea that orgasms _*should* have consequences_ just leaves me speechless.


It's not that they _should_, but that they _do_. Nobody cares if you like to scratch your butt if you wash your hands afterwards. The consequence of sex may be the creation of a human life or the spreading of disease--however simple hand washing will not suffice here.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

groovetube said:


> ...
> We all know how well teaching abstinence works, so perhaps more education on proper contraception use and better access to them will prevent more abortions! But no, less drag our feet on the real solutions, continue to demonize and make effective contraception more difficult to obtain and repeat the same spun nonsense over and over as if it somehow justifies their position.
> 
> Study: Free birth control leads to way fewer abortions - CBS News
> ...


I believe the Vatican Department of Research (VDR) is hard at work on a new type of Condom. One that will allow sperm to pass freely but block the spread of HIV. Thus satisfying the Church's need to be socially responsible while assuring women have unwanted children. Given that Sperm cells are considerably larger than virus cells this may require miraculous intervention but The Vatican does claim a direct and exclusive connection to the purveyor of miracles.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

groovetube said:


> See this is the sort of total lunacy that gets trotted out to further more suffering on all sides.
> 
> So, the solution them is to tell people -not- to use contraception, which will lead to even more pregnancies and more abortions?


I was simply pointing out to Bryan that the tools in the hedonist tool box do not live up to their promises of consequence free sexual gratification. One example being the fact that over 600,000 US women each year end up under the knife to kill their offspring because they thought their sexual activity was covered by the promises of birth control.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> It's not that they _should_, but that they _do_. Nobody cares if you like to scratch your butt if you wash your hands afterwards. The consequence of sex may be the creation of a human life or the spreading of disease--however simple hand washing will not suffice here.


You'd think bryan would have a better understanding of this given his field of expertise.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> I was simply pointing out to Bryan that the tools in the hedonist tool box do not live up to their promises of consequence free sexual gratification. One example being the fact that over 600,000 US women each year end up under the knife to kill their offspring because they thought their sexual activity was covered by the promises of birth control.


I know this stat is something that you like to repeat over and over, as if it closes the debate on this issue, but repeating it more often doesn't make the nonsense factor of it any less.

The fact is, no religious belief is going to prevent people from having sex, no matter how much you pray. All of you can't even prevent your own from being found in men's bathrooms looking for sex, abusing young boys, and all manner of sordid affairs. The level of hypocrisy demonstrated by a large number of religious zealots, many of whom are the very ones standing on pulpits proclaiming hell fire for the fornicating sinners is breath-taking.

When clear evidence is there that better education, and access to more effective contraception can reduce the number of abortions, I see responses that are clearly not based in reality, or facts, but simply backwards and dangerous faith based ones, I have to shake my head.

I have no problem with abstinence (and monogamy for that matter) being taught. None whatsoever. But I do have a real problem with the twisting of facts, and an outright refusal to accept reality that results in more suffering.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

eMacMan said:


> I believe the Vatican Department of Research (VDR) is hard at work on a new type of Condom. One that will allow sperm to pass freely but block the spread of HIV. Thus satisfying the Church's need to be socially responsible while assuring women have unwanted children. Given that Sperm cells are considerably larger than virus cells this may require miraculous intervention but The Vatican does claim a direct and exclusive connection to the purveyor of miracles.


Just be in a mutually faithful relationship with a single sexual partner and you'll need not worry about HIV. If we all lived by that simple rule HIV would vanish from the face of the earth as would a litany of other health and social problems.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Just be in a mutually faithful relationship with a single sexual partner and you'll need not worry about HIV. If we all lived by that simple rule HIV would vanish from the face of the earth as would a litany of other health and social problems.


Well unfortunately, we don't live in your fantasy land, so we have to accept reality, and use the best possible solutions to minimize the suffering.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> I was simply pointing out to Bryan that the tools in the hedonist tool box do not live up to their promises of consequence free sexual gratification.


I agree with you there; although when used correctly, it's pretty good. And the appropriate response to the small failure rate is to improve the tools, not to blame humans for being sexual.

Here's a simple hypothetical question; if there were no STDs, and fertilization was under voluntary control so a woman could choose to be fertile or not (sort of like Republicans like Todd Arkin imagine things work). Would sex be okay then? Or would such consequence-free pleasure be a sin?




Bertrand Russell said:


> The Christian view that all intercourse outside marriage is immoral was, as we see in the...passages from St. Paul, based upon the view that all sexual intercourse, even within marriage, is regrettable. A view of this sort, which goes against biological facts, can only be regarded by sane people as a morbid aberration. The fact that it is embedded in Christian ethics has made Christianity throughout its whole history a force tending towards mental disorders and unwholesome views of life.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

groovetube said:


> Well unfortunately, we don't live in your fantasy land, so we have to accept reality, and use the best possible solutions to minimize the suffering.


Fantasy Land? Heck people have managed to live in that "fantasy land" for thousands of years and still do to this day. You must have quite the libido if you think its impossible.
I agree its becoming more difficult the more pornographic and permissive our culture becomes but not impossible.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Fantasy Land? Heck people have managed to live in that "fantasy land" for thousands of years and still do to this day. You must have quite the libido if you think its impossible.
> I agree its becoming more difficult the more pornographic and permissive our culture becomes but not impossible.


No, we have not lived in the fantasy land that you have described for thousands of years. Far from it. The sooner you come to terms with this reality the better.

And yes, it is getting harder and harder to control people, promoting policies that actually results in more abortions kinda defeats your purpose doesn't it?

As I said, abstinence and monogamy are worthwhile things to promote, but it's time people stop burying their heads in the sand and adopt a saner approach that includes both.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Regarding the royal "we". This is certainly not my opinion, so it must be yours alone. We is too all-inclusive a term and insinuates you speak for all which is not really the case.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Regarding the royal "we". This is certainly not my opinion, so it must be yours alone. We is too all-inclusive a term and insinuates you speak for all which is not really the case.


You'll need to read the post again. The use of "we" was perfectly valid, as I needed to refer to everyone. In no way did it imply I "spoke for everyone".

Now, if you can stop following me around and playing "english teacher" and actually contribute to the topic, that would be great.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Them that can, do.

Them that can't, teach.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I read the post again very carefully. It says "we'. That includes me and I don't share the opinion, so I question how you can use the terminology. It's a simple enough question. I am not following you, I am questioning your use of that term and asking for an explanation as to why you feel you can speak for more than yourself. That is all I ask you to explain please.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

nowhere in the post did I imply everyone had the same opinion. Now please stop bullying thanks.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Regarding the royal "we". This is certainly not my opinion, so it must be yours alone. We is too all-inclusive a term and insinuates you speak for all which is not really the case.


So, when you're with a few friends, and you're in a crowd of even more people, and you use the word 'we', are you including everyone in that crowd, or just you and your friends?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


> So, when you're with a few friends, and you're in a crowd of even more people, and you use the word 'we', are you including everyone in that crowd, or just you and your friends?


He's following me around in other threads harassing me with this stuff about "royal we". It doesn't even make sense, but then, I've gotten used to this sort of stuff.

It's clear in my post what I meant using we.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

groovetube said:


> He's following me around in other threads harassing me with this stuff about "royal we". It doesn't even make sense, but then, I've gotten used to this sort of stuff.
> 
> It's clear in my post what I meant using we.


It's better to drive around a hole than get into it, this has been my experience anyway.

Sinc please hang in there good friend. I know the winter seems like it will never end, but the days are getting longer, the sun is getting stronger, ol' pal.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sonal said:


> So, when you're with a few friends, and you're in a crowd of even more people, and you use the word 'we', are you including everyone in that crowd, or just you and your friends?


In that circumstance 'we' refers to those present in our immediate group, ie: eye contact and hearing distance. That is real life.

On a forum such as this though, with so many individuals across the world, it is entirely misleading and does not reflect my (or your) opinion in any way. If for example, I state here that "we" think such terminology is wrong, does it not insinuate you think it is wrong? Since you obviously don't think it is wrong by your post, how do you justify the use?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Sinc please hang in there good friend. I know the winter seems like it will never end, but the days are getting longer, the sun is getting stronger, ol' pal.


I am hanging in there dear old buddy, not to worry. And thank you for your misplaced concern.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

This is just harassment. Clearly I used the term "we" to refer to everyone, all society that I felt didn't live in the world described by Macguiver. I could said, a; society, the whole world, "we", whatever.

But nowhere did I imply we all here in the forum had the same opinion as me. That would be incorrect. Now please stop with this nonsense and let it go, so the thread might continue on topic.

thanks.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I apologize if you felt it was harassment, it certainly was not intended to be groove. I simply questioned the terminology of using 'we' to express an opinion. When I give you my opinion on a topic it is "I" or "me". Sorry you feel this way.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> In that circumstance 'we' refers to those present in our immediate group, ie: eye contact and hearing distance. That is real life.
> 
> On a forum such as this though, with so many individuals across the world, it is entirely misleading and does not reflect my (or your) opinion in any way. If for example, I state here that "we" think such terminology is wrong, does it not insinuate you think it is wrong? Since you obviously don't think it is wrong by your post, how do you justify the use?


In an online context, I don't find the use of 'we' misleading. While the cues of eye contact or hearing distance are not available online, knowledge of people, personalities, history, prior discussion, opinions (all of which I can access) act as cues to determine who is included in 'we'.

It's not unlike the real-life situation of a person saying 'we' meaning their partner and them, when their partner is not physically present. (e.g., "We love to barbecue.") My knowledge of that person, history, etc., is my cue that the 'we' here refers to that person and their partner, and not me.

In any case, earlier, you said "This is certainly not my opinion, so it must be yours alone." That's a logical fallacy... if it's not your opinion, that does not necessarily imply that it's groovetube's alone, as by 'we' he could (correctly) refer to him and at least one other person who is not you. 

In your question, quoted above, when you say "we think this is wrong", and clearly I am not part of the 'we', I don't assume you are speaking for me. Therefore, you must be speaking for you and someone else other than me. If I'm not clear on who else, I could simply ask you that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> I simply questioned the terminology of using 'we' to express an opinion. When I give you my opinion on a topic it is "I" or "me". Sorry you feel this way.


I feel that the use of "we" often implies a timidity in the user. A simple fear of expressing an idea that could be traced to that person alone. With encouragement, rather than dismissal, these people can gain more confidence in expressing themselves.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well, I'll have to credit macfury for one thing. He has certainly mastered the art of crafting a personal attack, and keeping well within the rules. I'm not sure what sort of reward exists for such a heroic effort, perhaps there is something could recognize this selfless, noble feat.

In any case, it's too bad both he and sinc have managed derail completely the topic of this thread, specifically my debate with macguiver, which seemed just fine, though we definitely disagreed with each other.

Maybe after such noble efforts have run it's course, maybe I'll return to the thread. Sorry to anyone else for the derailment.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

iMouse said:


> Them that can, do.
> 
> Them that can't, teach.


Them that can't teach, teach phys ed.

Them that used to teach phys ed, become administrators.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

macintosh doctor said:


> And what power would that be ?!?
> Other than waving her hand around and travel the world on some one else's dime..
> 
> Pope actually has real powers and duties.
> Sorry not royalist.


I'ts probably already been said by now (in this thread), I haven't read it all, but...

If I had to chose between keeping the Queen and the Pope, I'd choose the Queen. At least she tries to keep in step with modern times. The Pope is so behind the times it's ridiculous.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

macintosh doctor said:


> Pope actually has real powers and duties.


While I agree the powers and duties of Royalty are just as made up, I don't see how the pope is functionally different than a King or Queen... and all one has to do is say "I'm not Catholic" and he's got no power over you at all. So if the Queen has no real power or duty, the Pope certainly does not.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Damn, this thread gets interesting at the end... now it's a sex thread. How a thread on the Pope resigning office becomes a thread about sex and masturbation, is interesting.

Maybe I should get back into the church scene if it's about sex. Reminds me about that Christian dating service on US TV. I guess Christians are having a hard time finding each other and you know they don't want to date and marry any non-Christian sinners that are going to hell.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Kosh said:


> Reminds me about that Christian dating service on US TV.
> 
> I guess Christians are having a hard time finding each other, and you know *they don't want to date and marry any non-Christian sinners that are going to hell.*


More likely "don't want to date and marry any non-Christian sinners that won't propagate the church."


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

iMouse said:


> More likely "don't want to date and marry any non-Christian sinners that won't propagate the church."


Actually it probably has more to do with the fact two like minded people won't come to hate each other over conflicting morals and beliefs. I recon fixing you up with a devout Pentacostal girl would be like mixing oil and water. Theres an atheist dating service out there for you.

Atheist Passions - 100% Free Atheist Dating & Social Networking, Atheist Personals & Chat


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

MacGuiver said:


> Actually it probably has more to do with the fact two like minded people won't come to hate each other over conflicting morals and beliefs.
> 
> I recon fixing you up with a devout *Pentecostal* girl would be like mixing oil and water. *There's* likely an atheist dating service out there for you.


Sorry, Atheists are too restricted in their thinking for me, just like the Theists.

Agnostic, please, or if you prefer, free-thinker. :clap:

I know, it's a pain trying to nail us down, but you'll just have to deal with it.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Here are some classy free thinkin ladies for ya Mouse.

Game over: feminists get their kit off at Notre Dame Cathedral to cheer Ratzinger’s resignation


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

MacGuiver said:


> Here are some classy free thinkin ladies for ya Mouse.


Classy? :lmao: Shrill is more like it.

Not a fan of provocateurs, at all. I prefer a tad more demure, but not in any way subservient.

An equal to me would be good. ROTFLOL


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

iMouse said:


> Sorry, Atheists are too restricted in their thinking for me, just like the Theists.
> 
> Agnostic, please, or if you prefer, free-thinker.


Unless you're using the words differently than I, and every atheist and philosopher I know (which I suspect is the case), this is a bit odd. All rational agnostics are atheists, and all atheists I've met are also agnostics. 'gnosis' refers to knowledge of god(s) - 'agnostic' means 'lacking knowledge of god(s)'. 'Theist' means having a belief in god(s) -'Atheist' means 'not having a belief in god(s)'. If you lack knowledge of god(s) how can you have beliefs about them? So if you lack knowledge, and you're rational, you lack beliefs, making you an agnostic atheist.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Please, no labels.

I do not profess to know about any 'god', nor do I believe anyone now or before does either.

But the possibility is still there, for me.

Or is all this some massive computer SIM game, which would not answer the question but would prove amusing.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

iMouse said:


> An equal to me would be good. ROTFLOL


There is no equal to you. You're one of a kind! Kinda mousey, though.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

bryanc said:


> Unless you're using the words differently than I, and every atheist and philosopher I know (which I suspect is the case), this is a bit odd. All rational agnostics are atheists, and all atheists I've met are also agnostics. 'gnosis' refers to knowledge of god(s) - 'agnostic' means 'lacking knowledge of god(s)'. 'Theist' means having a belief in god(s) -'Atheist' means 'not having a belief in god(s)'. If you lack knowledge of god(s) how can you have beliefs about them? So if you lack knowledge, and you're rational, you lack beliefs, making you an agnostic atheist.


Atheism is a belief system. It's a belief that there is no god. 

Agnostic is a lack of a belief system. It's an admission that you don't know what to believe.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

heavyall said:


> Atheism is a belief system. It's a belief that there is no god.
> 
> Agnostic is a lack of a belief system. It's an admission that you don't know what to believe.


There is no such thing as a lack of a belief system. Agnostics believe that they don't know what to believe—which is a belief. Maybe it's the system part that is confusing, since it implies some kind of collective organization. A person could have a belief system all their own, if it comes down to it. 

Take the sun for instance. Everyday we see its light and feel its warmth, but what we think we see is really an illusion, or rather a time shifted delayed image. When we see the sun in the sky, we are seeing the sun's position relative to the earth eight minutes ago, not where it actually is now, since it takes eight light-minutes for the sun's energy to reach the earth. We don't think about it, we just carry on, believing that what we see is what is, but when the last light of the sun sets on the horizon, it's already been down for eight minutes. Relative to us. 

Even those who say they don't believe in anything have just stated what they believe. There is no escape.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

I don't like his use of "admission", like it's some kind of flaw. tptptptp

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to admit that he just don't know.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

iMouse said:


> Please, no labels.
> 
> I do not profess to know about any 'god', nor do I believe anyone now or before does either.
> 
> ...


I fall into this same line of er, beliefs. Christians (or others) have never been able to give me definitive reasons for believing there is a god. But to be fair, I can't say the opposite either.

I'm probably less an agnostic, as I lean towards thinking there possibly may be more than one god out there. Lucky for me, it's 2012 because being burned to death would suck.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Now THIS is interesting.... 

http://www.stuartwilde.com/2013/02/popeseeks-immunity-protection-from-italian-president/


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

groovetube said:


> Lucky for me, it's 2012


now that's what I'd call living in the past


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

fjnmusic said:


> Now THIS is interesting..


Read something on the Weeb this morning about the upcoming charges.

He's not Italian, he's king of his own 'country' right now.

Let him pardon himself out of this one.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

fjnmusic said:


> Now THIS is interesting....
> 
> Pope Seeks Immunity Protection from Italian President | Stuart Wilde | The Official Author Website


I think Stuarts imagination is running wilde. Not a single mainstream media source is reporting this and something this salacious and anti Catholic would be lapped up by the media.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> I think Stuarts imagination is running wilde. Not a single mainstream media source is reporting this and something this salacious and anti Catholic would be lapped up by the media.


http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE91E0ZI20130215?irpc=932


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

The legal proceedings will hopefully continue quickly and if found guilty the pressure on the Vatican (should the rat still be alive) would put the scoundrels in quite a dilemma. 

It would be a good thing to put this rat behind bars. The organisation could then go through a nice cleansing period where it could return to promoting peace, love, and understanding. 

What is more likely is a settlement in the millions and a non-disclosure agreement signed. This rat knows a deal when he sees one. 

I'm glad major news sources are picking this story up. It's similar in scale to the Bush-Cheney gang being afraid to travel internationally as they are afraid of being detained and charged with crimes against humanity. 

The rat should confess to his sins and seek redemption before he deploys the Alzheimer's out plan. 

Time will tell.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> It's similar in scale to the Bush-Cheney gang being afraid to travel internationally as they are afraid of being detained and charged with crimes against humanity.


Not similar at all in that this is an urban legend.

However, the Pope is not worried about being charged with a crime-merely being called in as part of a large list of defendants andf spending his remaining life fighting court cases. There is no "deal" or "settlement" in the works.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Pope will have security, immunity by remaining in the Vatican


I hear reuters is pretty big 

I'm seeing it pop up on many other news sources as well.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Who's Afraid of War Crimes Prosecution? Cheney Cancels Canada Visit | Global Research TV

Just one of many links that show the bad guys are scarred for their misdeeds during their respective reigns of power.

Anyone know when they light up the smoke for the new pope?


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

I have a hard time understanding those defending the rat. His condonation of the wrong doing by clergy members links him to the evil doers. The clear violation of one of the 10 commandments, namely Exodus 20:17 is surely a cause for resignation and places the institution's credibility into disrepute.

*Thou shall not covet thy neighbour's ass.* Do they think old moses was joking? You have to respect ol'mo for being an early adopter of tablets.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Who's Afraid of War Crimes Prosecution? Cheney Cancels Canada Visit | Global Research TV


As I said, neither will visit countries where they'll be met with crowds of nutty protesters. However, they're in no danger of being arrested in Canada--that's just left wing wishful thinking.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> I have a hard time understanding those defending the rat. His condonation of the wrong doing by clergy members links him to the evil doers. The clear violation of one of the 10 commandments, namely Exodus 20:17 is surely a cause for resignation and places the institution's credibility into disrepute.
> 
> *Thou shall not covet thy neighbour's ass.* Do they think old moses was joking? You have to respect ol'mo for being an early adopter of tablets.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0Mg-eZqEdI]The Ten Commandments Moses And The Burning Bush.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

The creation of WiFi. Shalom, mon ami.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Macfury said:


> As I said, neither will visit countries where they'll be met with crowds of nutty protesters. However, they're in no danger of being arrested in Canada--that's just left wing wishful thinking.


Sheer and utter poppycock. International law has nothing to do with the political spectrum. Right, left or centre - in Europe, central and South America wish to see the law applied. And yes in Canada too.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Dr.G. said:


> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0Mg-eZqEdI]The Ten Commandments Moses And The Burning Bush.wmv - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> The creation of WiFi. Shalom, mon ami.


Thank you Dr. G. That's the man. The original kool Mo Dee.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Right out of ST-TOS. :lmao:


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Thank you Dr. G. That's the man. The original kool Mo Dee.


Amen, brother. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> *Thou shall not covet thy neighbour's ass.*


jimbotelecom was banned in part for making the exact same joke--watch it.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> jimbotelecom was banned in part for making the exact same joke--watch it.


Was that a warning or a threat MF?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> jimbotelecom was banned in part for making the exact same joke--watch it.


Which part to watch? The neighbor? the @ss? Or the joke itself?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Was that a warning or a threat MF?


It was a warning about community standards. A threat would be toothless.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> It was a warning about community standards. A threat would be toothless.


Correct. You should be more aware of the tone of your replies. Saying 'watch it' isn't very friendly or community minded.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Correct. You should be more aware of the tone of your replies. Saying 'watch it' isn't very friendly or community minded.


If I see a loose boulder suspended on the path ahead of you, mrjimmy, it would certainly be friendly and community-minded to tell you to "watch it," particularly if I had seen a similar boulder roll through that very spot.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Fury's the name, fury's the game. 

Ignoring posts like that is so much easier, and it vexes the poster something fierce.

:lmao:


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

iMouse said:


> Fury's the name, fury's the game.
> 
> Ignoring posts like that is so much easier, and it vexes the poster something fierce.
> 
> :lmao:


What can I say, I'm bored.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> What can I say, I'm bored.


On top of that, I'm _never_ vexed if the post is ignored. 

And on top of that, I helped mrjimmy out on a question about some install disks he had a few hours ago.

What does it all mean???!!!!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> On top of that, I'm _never_ vexed if the post is ignored.
> 
> And on top of that, I helped mrjimmy out on a question about some install disks he had a few hours ago.
> 
> What does it all mean???!!!!


It means your a good mensch. :clap::clap: Shalom, mon ami.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I thought this was a thread about the Pope resigning? I think I may have wandered into Jersey Shore or something by mistake.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

8 things that the Pope can do now that he's retired....

8 Things the Pope Can Do Now That He’s Retired


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> On top of that, I'm _never_ vexed if the post is ignored.
> 
> And on top of that, I helped mrjimmy out on a question about some install disks he had a few hours ago.
> 
> What does it all mean???!!!!


What indeed!

How would we know if you're vexed or not? Just like how would we know if you were issuing a threat when saying 'watch it'. For those of us who remember, you and Jimbo didn't always see eye to eye. Fairly easy to put two and two together - _or is it?_

Anyhoo, I do appreciate your opinion on the disc issue. This is a Mac forum after all. What happens in the Everything Else area should stay in the Everything Else area.

Back to our regularly scheduled thread.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ha ha. The gong show continues without me.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> ha ha. The gong show continues without me.


I'm just reminding myself why I don't post in this section anymore. Thank God I still have some Mac questions left...


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Dr.G. said:


> It means your a good mensch. :clap::clap: Shalom, mon ami.


What's the male opposite of yenta?


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> What's the male opposite of yenta?





> There isn't an exact masculine equivalent in Yiddish; "busybody" or "blabbermouth" are gender-neutral English synonyms.
> 
> The Yiddish word is actually spelled "yente" - pronounced yent-e with the second syllable a short e as in bed.


 .


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

iMouse said:


> .


My mistake. You have to forgive a goy for not nailing it. 

We're dealing with putzes here.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Nah, you're just a good goyem, as am I.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> What's the male opposite of yenta?





skippythebushkangaroo said:


> My mistake. You have to forgive a goy for not nailing it.
> 
> We're dealing with putzes here.


John is correct, skippythebushkangaroo. Still, I would not consider you a putz. It's not easy being a Yiddish maven these days. I am certainly no yiddisher kop (i.e., a smart person., with a literal meaning of “Jewish head”).


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

iMouse said:


> Nah, you're just a good goyem, as am I.


True. Relax, you’re both mishpocheh (family) ............ at least in The Shang.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

iMouse said:


> Nah, you're just a good goyem, as am I.


Christ I've been on a no wheat eating restriction for nearly a month. The only thing I miss are St. Viateur bagels.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Christ I've been in a no wheat eating restriction for nearly a month. The only thing in miss are St. Viateur bagels.


Me too!!!!!!!!! My mother was born and raised in the Outremont area of Montreal.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

...the pope


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> My mistake. You have to forgive a goy for not nailing it.
> 
> We're dealing with putzes here.


Oh, I get it now...It's like God playing hide and seek

Well played... Bravo

It's not what you say, It's who you are.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

heavyall said:


> Atheism is a belief system. It's a belief that there is no god.


Bertrand Russell and every philosophy professor I've ever had would disagree with you.

What you're describing is "hard atheism", which is a sort of straw-man possession that describes no one. I've never encountered anyone who has an active belief in the non-existence of god(s).



> Agnostic is a lack of a belief system. It's an admission that you don't know what to believe.


Correct. And because agnostics profess a lack of knowledge about god(s), unless they are irrational, they must also lack beliefs in god(s), making them atheists as well.

Despite the fact that agnosticism is effectively equivalent to atheism (unless one is prone to forming irrational beliefs about things that are unknown), many people prefer the label 'agnostic' because it has less political baggage in the US than 'atheist.' Admitting to being an atheist can get you in a lot of hot water in some places down south


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Seems fitting . . .


----------



## jef (Dec 9, 2007)

heavyall said:


> Atheism is a belief system. It's a belief that there is no god.


Atheism is not a belief system. It's the opposite of believing; a total lack of belief.

Take Santa Claus as an example. You don't 'believe' there is no Santa Claus. Everything you have learned as an adult has made it clear to you that there is no Santa Claus. You don't have to 'believe' there is no Santa Claus - you know it.

The same is true for atheists. Based on everything you have learned as an adult, you have no 'belief' there is or isn't a god or gods in the same way you know there is no Santa Claus. 

If you are not sure if there is a Santa Claus, you are agnostic.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jef said:


> Atheism is not a belief system. It's the opposite of believing; a total lack of belief.
> 
> Take Santa Claus as an example. You don't 'believe' there is no Santa Claus. Everything you have learned as an adult has made it clear to you that there is no Santa Claus. You don't have to 'believe' there is no Santa Claus - you know it.


That's a good analogy. 

Just as a person who is _a_moral is not necessarily bad--they just have no sense of morals.


----------



## jef (Dec 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> That's a good analogy.
> 
> Just as a person who is _a_moral is not necessarily bad--they just have no sense of morals.


Morals are relative; not static.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jef said:


> Morals are relative; not static.


Which has nothing to do with the definition of the word.




jef said:


>



Atheists just kill each other for a whole other set of reasons.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Atheists just kill each other for a whole other set of reasons.


Other than power, wealth, control and position?

Same contents, different wrapper.


----------



## jef (Dec 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Atheists just kill each other for a whole other set of reasons.


? What atheists? what reasons?

Be specific!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jef said:


> ? What atheists? what reasons?
> 
> Be specific!


Jealousy, acquisition of wealth, rage, gang warfare... the typical stuff.


----------



## jef (Dec 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Jealousy, acquisition of wealth, rage, gang warfare... the typical stuff.


OK - I don't think most Atheists deny their humanity, which is imminently fallible, as part of their non-belief (I can't speak for all atheistic non-belief, for I know not what all atheists believe). But if you subtract all the killings due to religious fighting and wars, heaven and hell would be a lot less prematurely populated...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jef said:


> OK - I don't think most Atheists deny their humanity, which is imminently fallible, as part of their non-belief (I can't speak for all atheistic non-belief, for I know not what all atheists believe). But if you subtract all the killings due to religious fighting and wars, heaven and hell would be a lot less prematurely populated...


Honestly, I don't know any religious person who has killed anyone as a result of their religion either. North America in the 20th and 21st century seems pretty much devoid of religious wars--just isolated cases.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Hmmm. I wonder what else the Pope can do now (he says in a vain attempt to derail the derailment).....

Celebrity Guest Judge on the X-Factor


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

I didn't realize that Pop had such shapely legs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMouse said:


> I didn't realize that Pop had such shapely legs.


Don't you hate lazy Photoshoppers?


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Do it right the first time or go home. 

But for 85, the old fart is good at standing on one leg. Damn show-off.


----------

