Thread: What do you think of Pope Francis ?

I like him, a lot. His simple humility is genuine. He seems very progressive-minded and is a departure from the old tradition. I wish him well. I've waited a long time for the chance to say something positive about the faith I was raised in. Well, near, anyway; I don't think I was ever "in" that flock. The Catholic nuns who taught me for eight long years insured I would never partake of their belief system. I was never abused, much, but I saw a lot of it (I mean corporal punishment, not the other, much worse kind many priests committed). Being taught science by nuns was...weird and hopeless. They didn't seem to know anything at all about the subject. I didn't discover how interesting it was until public high school. And even there, in Biology class, not a single reference to Darwin or to evolution was made. My dad died (I don't use 'passed away') when I was 15. A few months after his death, a black silhouette in a very dark bedroom was seen by me, standing beside my bed as I awoke from what seemed a deep dream state. Lying on my side, my eyes could clearly see an utterly black figure. From that position, I could not discern anything but its midsection, unable to see up any higher. So sure was I of it's realness, I spoke to it saying, "What do you want ?" With that, the apparition vanished. I broke out in a cold sweat wondering what in hell had just happened. I had a vague sense of my father's presence, shortly. So, was I being visited by the ghost of my dad ? As I began to calm down I pondered it. My dad did, as a habit in his life, go around and peek in on his kids a night, true. The figure did not speak, either, and my pop was a man of few words, as well. But, I figured out what had happened and the lesson has served me well. I missed my father very much; his loss was painful to me and to our family. Maybe I'd been dreaming about him, I reasoned, and projected my subconscious wish to be with him onto real space and time. The whole experience lasted but a few seconds and my dream state had been transposed into my bedroom, for a moment. This was the one 'supernatural' experience of my life and it turned out not to be supernatural at all. Others would have interpreted such an occurrence as other-worldly, when it was only human feelings which produced the phantom. I still like to think it was my pop, but I cannot accept that it was. When we're young our parents are god-like. In adulthood, this inherent urge makes us want to find another model; we have come to realize that we love our parents, but not as gods. As people.
A few months later I read Desmond Morris' "The Naked Ape". It opened my eyes wide. Humans are animals ! Of course, and very much a part of the animal kingdom, not divine beings! I could not refute this and wasn't interested in trying. My epiphany came soon after; lying awake in bed I compared my religious teachings with my newly discovered interest in science and began to imagine a universe devoid of a creator. I wondered what would keep the earth form falling; what would support the order of things ? Then I remembered the laws of nature, and realized, God or no God, the earth would still obey the laws of nature, of Newton, and that the earth has orbited our sun for billions of years. In a flash, I saw that all the theology I'd been exposed to was wrong. It was a defining moment in my life.

Me?

He's a better man than the truly awful Ratzinger.

And that's it. (And it's not a very high bar anyway.)

As a Pope, I like him.

As anyone else, he's just another person who subscribes to something I don't understand.

It's weird that my biggest hope for this Pope was that he would weaken the religious fanaticism that drives people to fight back against gay rights, birth control, non-religious people, etc. I basically wanted a Pope that would bang on the support structure of his own religion.

Don't know him personally so I can't say much about him.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

As a Pope, I like him.

As anyone else, he's just another person who subscribes to something I don't understand.

It's weird that my biggest hope for this Pope was that he would weaken the religious fanaticism that drives people to fight back against gay rights, birth control, non-religious people, etc. I basically wanted a Pope that would bang on the support structure of his own religion.

If Catholic social teaching changes they might as well just donate the Vatican to Italy and become atheists.

What do you think of Pope Francis?

I don't! However he is clearly delusional in the truest sense of the word. Like all religious people. (if that is harsh, think about the term delusional) There is nothing much else I can say other than it would not be wise to trust him. But as long as you are aware of that, you can treat him like anybody else.

Originally Posted by pavlos

What do you think of Pope Francis?

I don't! However he is clearly delusional in the truest sense of the word. Like all religious people. (if that is harsh, think about the term delusional) There is nothing much else I can say other than it would not be wise to trust him. But as long as you are aware of that, you can treat him like anybody else.

Deluded by compassion??? Doesn't sound too bad to me.

Originally Posted by Trivium

Originally Posted by pavlos

What do you think of Pope Francis?

I don't! However he is clearly delusional in the truest sense of the word. Like all religious people. (if that is harsh, think about the term delusional) There is nothing much else I can say other than it would not be wise to trust him. But as long as you are aware of that, you can treat him like anybody else.

Deluded by compassion??? Doesn't sound too bad to me.

Yes. Just like those in the high security insane asylums, suffering from delusion. Nice and docile.

Originally Posted by Trivium

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

As a Pope, I like him.

As anyone else, he's just another person who subscribes to something I don't understand.

It's weird that my biggest hope for this Pope was that he would weaken the religious fanaticism that drives people to fight back against gay rights, birth control, non-religious people, etc. I basically wanted a Pope that would bang on the support structure of his own religion.

If Catholic social teaching changes they might as well just donate the Vatican to Italy and become atheists.

Works for me.

I do not have an opinion about the current Pope, as I do not follow his actions nor do I read what he has to say about a topic.

However, when Pope Francis arrived on the balcony and watched the crowd, he made a good first impression (in my opinion).


PS: Thank you for sharing your experiences.

When he actually changes policies that are hurting people I'll be a lot more in support. A push for contraceptives and reproductive education in the developed world would be a good place to start.

I'm suspicious. I get the impression that his appointment was a conscious public relations decision by the church. The previous pope was a hard line, anti-progress conservative with a sketchy reputation. That kind of stuff invites negative scrutiny. Now, this new fellow seems very calm and compassionate and he's very good at saying exactly the right thing. All we're hearing now is how great this guy is and all the public scrutiny seems to have dried up. That doesn't mean all the behind-the-scenes stuff the church does has stopped.

I haven't been following developments, but has Francis made any important changes yet? Or is the old status quo still intact?

I don't think of him at all really. Just another Pope, dime a dozen.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by Trivium

Originally Posted by pavlos

What do you think of Pope Francis?

I don't! However he is clearly delusional in the truest sense of the word. Like all religious people. (if that is harsh, think about the term delusional) There is nothing much else I can say other than it would not be wise to trust him. But as long as you are aware of that, you can treat him like anybody else.

Deluded by compassion??? Doesn't sound too bad to me.

Yes. Just like those in the high security insane asylums, suffering from delusion. Nice and docile.

This is a religious question. And, you are an atheist.

Why post here then? The only thing you did was insult people. Nothing useful was added to the topic from your post. The question was not "Is religion right or wrong?" The question was "What do you think of this pope?"


You answer the question, but not to answer it. To insult people. If your only intent is to insult people in this forum, then why are you here?

I think he is a bad pope. Why? This: OUTRAGEOUS: Pope Francis makes it illegal to report clergy sex abuse!Vatican CrimesVATICAN CRIMES

Originally Posted by Karsus

I'm suspicious. I get the impression that his appointment was a conscious public relations decision by the church. The previous pope was a hard line, anti-progress conservative with a sketchy reputation. That kind of stuff invites negative scrutiny. Now, this new fellow seems very calm and compassionate and he's very good at saying exactly the right thing. All we're hearing now is how great this guy is and all the public scrutiny seems to have dried up. That doesn't mean all the behind-the-scenes stuff the church does has stopped.

I haven't been following developments, but has Francis made any important changes yet? Or is the old status quo still intact?

Yes, Pope Francis removed a high level
Bishop, or something. In Vienna, I think. reason: he'd spent $ 41 million fixing-up his place. That's a good start.

Originally Posted by Weterman

I think he is a bad pope. Why? This: OUTRAGEOUS: Pope Francis makes it illegal to report clergy sex abuse!Vatican CrimesVATICAN CRIMES

Did you read the article?

The only reason it's "illegal" to report abuse is because someone made a legal drafting mistake. The song and dance is all based on the fact that the Vatican is sometimes slow to fix up these kinds of obvious clangers.

They've said they'll fix it. Give them time to make sure that the new legislation they need to draft doesn't make the problem worse or create new legal problems because they're doing it in a rush, then get stuck into them if they get it wrong or they don't have a good explanation of the problems they face.

(btw. That's a really straaaange website. They don't have an About us button. They don't even have a Donation button. There seems to be no easy way to find out who runs the site. When the article you link to was written by someone titled 666 USA and the opening words of the article are The mother of all abominations on earth ... it looks pretty bad.)

Originally Posted by adelady

Originally Posted by Weterman

I think he is a bad pope. Why? This: OUTRAGEOUS: Pope Francis makes it illegal to report clergy sex abuse!Vatican CrimesVATICAN CRIMES

Did you read the article?

The only reason it's "illegal" to report abuse is because someone made a legal drafting mistake. The song and dance is all based on the fact that the Vatican is sometimes slow to fix up these kinds of obvious clangers.

They've said they'll fix it. Give them time to make sure that the new legislation they need to draft doesn't make the problem worse or create new legal problems because they're doing it in a rush, then get stuck into them if they get it wrong or they don't have a good explanation of the problems they face.

(btw. That's a really straaaange website. They don't have an About us button. They don't even have a Donation button. There seems to be no easy way to find out who runs the site. When the article you link to was written by someone titled 666 USA and the opening words of the article are The mother of all abominations on earth ... it looks pretty bad.)

oh, sorry.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

Originally Posted by Karsus

I'm suspicious. I get the impression that his appointment was a conscious public relations decision by the church. The previous pope was a hard line, anti-progress conservative with a sketchy reputation. That kind of stuff invites negative scrutiny. Now, this new fellow seems very calm and compassionate and he's very good at saying exactly the right thing. All we're hearing now is how great this guy is and all the public scrutiny seems to have dried up. That doesn't mean all the behind-the-scenes stuff the church does has stopped.

I haven't been following developments, but has Francis made any important changes yet? Or is the old status quo still intact?

Yes, Pope Francis removed a high level
Bishop, or something. In Vienna, I think. reason: he'd spent $ 41 million fixing-up his place. That's a good start.

Any progress at all is something I suppose. I'm still suspicious, though. :P

Any progress at all is something I suppose. I'm still suspicious, though.

I'm not suspicious, just resigned.

Even if, and that's a hell of a big If, Francis pushes further and better on the "option for the poor" which is pretty standard catholic doctrine anyway, it's pretty hard to push a calcified assembly of self-protective, ideologically committed, authoritarian, conformist bureaucrats to modify their attitudes, let alone their formalised practices. They'd need to be analytical, reflective, maybe a bit creative. I think it's too much to ask of them. He might be able to gradually change the general tone of some of the work they do. I'm pretty sure he'll get the finances in much better shape and introduce a bit of transparency and good audit practices. But they had their biggest chance to change direction back in the early 60s with John 23rd and the 2nd Vatican Council. They did some good stuff, but not enough to withstand the assaults in the following years from Ratzinger running the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the obsessions of John Paul. What they did to the liberation theology proponents in South America was nothing short of criminal. Liberation theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Oscar Romero will one day become a saint. How come it's taken so long - there are plenty of less worthy people who got the go ahead despite dying a long time after his assassination.

Individually, the Vatican staff might be really nice people. And so might the train that's coming towards you be fully loaded with kind and well-intentioned people. But it'll knock you flat and and tear you limb from limb regardless. It's unstoppable.

Originally Posted by Weterman

This is a religious question. And, you are an atheist.

No! I'm a humanist.
Atheist is label from a religious perspective, I don't label myself that way.

Originally Posted by Weterman

Why post here then? The only thing you did was insult people. Nothing useful was added to the topic from your post. The question was not "Is religion right or wrong?" The question was "What do you think of this pope?"

Of which I gave my opinion. Am I to keep my mouth shut, just because it upsets you.

Originally Posted by Weterman

You answer the question, but not to answer it. To insult people. If your only intent is to insult people in this forum, then why are you here?

To insult is to treat with disrespect, why should religious delusion deserve respect. What has it done to earn it. You took issue with my opinion, just because you think religion deserves respect, that is your problem not mine.
I did say if this is harsh think about the term delusional which is a belief maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument.
Stating the facts as they are isn't being insulting it's being truthful.
How can anybody in their right mind, trust another person who holds an imaginary concept above reality. You only have to take a look at religious history to know how evil it can be and is.
It's holy books are an incitement to violence.

Insulting it may appear to you. Truthful is what it is.

Would you respect and trust a person who held the tooth fairy in the same regard as a god? And it would not surprise me if there is someone out there somewhere who does!

This is NOT a "religious question". It's just a regular one. How, or whether, to answer it depends on the individual.

Originally Posted by Weterman

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by Trivium

Originally Posted by pavlos

What do you think of Pope Francis?

I don't! However he is clearly delusional in the truest sense of the word. Like all religious people. (if that is harsh, think about the term delusional) There is nothing much else I can say other than it would not be wise to trust him. But as long as you are aware of that, you can treat him like anybody else.

Deluded by compassion??? Doesn't sound too bad to me.

Yes. Just like those in the high security insane asylums, suffering from delusion. Nice and docile.

This is a religious question. And, you are an atheist.

Why post here then? The only thing you did was insult people. Nothing useful was added to the topic from your post. The question was not "Is religion right or wrong?" The question was "What do you think of this pope?"


You answer the question, but not to answer it. To insult people. If your only intent is to insult people in this forum, then why are you here?

Originally Posted by adelady

Any progress at all is something I suppose. I'm still suspicious, though.

I'm not suspicious, just resigned.

Even if, and that's a hell of a big If, Francis pushes further and better on the "option for the poor" which is pretty standard catholic doctrine anyway, it's pretty hard to push a calcified assembly of self-protective, ideologically committed, authoritarian, conformist bureaucrats to modify their attitudes, let alone their formalised practices. They'd need to be analytical, reflective, maybe a bit creative. I think it's too much to ask of them. He might be able to gradually change the general tone of some of the work they do. I'm pretty sure he'll get the finances in much better shape and introduce a bit of transparency and good audit practices. But they had their biggest chance to change direction back in the early 60s with John 23rd and the 2nd Vatican Council. They did some good stuff, but not enough to withstand the assaults in the following years from Ratzinger running the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the obsessions of John Paul. What they did to the liberation theology proponents in South America was nothing short of criminal. Liberation theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Oscar Romero will one day become a saint. How come it's taken so long - there are plenty of less worthy people who got the go ahead despite dying a long time after his assassination.

Individually, the Vatican staff might be really nice people. And so might the train that's coming towards you be fully loaded with kind and well-intentioned people. But it'll knock you flat and and tear you limb from limb regardless. It's unstoppable.

When Catholicism is defended, I often attack it; when it is attacked, I sometimes find myself defending it. Strange, I know. But, I would like to point-out that the church does come-around to admitting false doctrines, occasionally. It declared Galileo free of any wrong-doing................................in 1992. A bit too late to help the great man.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Don't know him personally so I can't say much about him.

You're entitled to an opinion, still. One need not know him personally. By his acts a person can be judged, to some degree.

I like that he is seemingly returning the church to a more compassion based belief. getting rid of something like 4 of the more conservative cardinals (?) on his counsel is was a good move.

I'm not really a nut bar, but I like them, a little. I don't mind criticism. You're cool. So am I, now. I'm passionate, that's all, grumpy

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

I like that he is seemingly returning the church to a more compassion based belief. getting rid of something like 4 of the more conservative cardinals (?) on his counsel is was a good move.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

I'm not really a nut bar, but I like them, a little. I don't mind criticism. You're cool. So am I, now. I'm passionate, that's all, grumpy

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

I like that he is seemingly returning the church to a more compassion based belief. getting rid of something like 4 of the more conservative cardinals (?) on his counsel is was a good move.

Nothing wrong with passion, brother. let's just not take it out as anger on our assumed enemies. we all don't have to see eye to eye to work towards the same goals/causes within our environment. I think the left spends so much time dicing each other up because "you're not as vegan as I am," or "you don't listen the left approved music" or whatever meaningless nonsense that keeps us all divided that we never really get to strong because we spend all of our time bickering amongst ourselves.

For example, I hate all of the God talk that goes on within the democratic party but I tolerate it because I know they are better than republicans as far as my interests and my interests for society are concerned. so i shall vote democratic until repubs are extinguished and then I will hopefully be able to vote for a more viable progressive version of the democratic party (perhaps the green party) until the democrats are extinguished and then I can hopefully vote for a more viable progressive version of the green party and so on and so forth.
Just how I look at it.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Don't know him personally so I can't say much about him.

You're entitled to an opinion, still. One need not know him personally. By his acts a person can be judged, to some degree.

Well anyone that believes in a supernatural being controls the entire universe and humans included must be somewhat ignorant about all of the scientific research done about evolution. Now that does not mean I really care what his beliefs are only that those are his beliefs and not facts. For such an intelligent person that would make me wonder about his education somewhat.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

Originally Posted by adelady

Any progress at all is something I suppose. I'm still suspicious, though.

I'm not suspicious, just resigned.

Even if, and that's a hell of a big If, Francis pushes further and better on the "option for the poor" which is pretty standard catholic doctrine anyway, it's pretty hard to push a calcified assembly of self-protective, ideologically committed, authoritarian, conformist bureaucrats to modify their attitudes, let alone their formalised practices. They'd need to be analytical, reflective, maybe a bit creative. I think it's too much to ask of them. He might be able to gradually change the general tone of some of the work they do. I'm pretty sure he'll get the finances in much better shape and introduce a bit of transparency and good audit practices. But they had their biggest chance to change direction back in the early 60s with John 23rd and the 2nd Vatican Council. They did some good stuff, but not enough to withstand the assaults in the following years from Ratzinger running the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the obsessions of John Paul. What they did to the liberation theology proponents in South America was nothing short of criminal. Liberation theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Oscar Romero will one day become a saint. How come it's taken so long - there are plenty of less worthy people who got the go ahead despite dying a long time after his assassination.

Individually, the Vatican staff might be really nice people. And so might the train that's coming towards you be fully loaded with kind and well-intentioned people. But it'll knock you flat and and tear you limb from limb regardless. It's unstoppable.

When Catholicism is defended, I often attack it; when it is attacked, I sometimes find myself defending it. Strange, I know. But, I would like to point-out that the church does come-around to admitting false doctrines, occasionally. It declared Galileo free of any wrong-doing................................in 1992. A bit too late to help the great man.

For what its worth, my take on the Galileo thing is that Galileo's scientific beliefs did not get him into trouble, it was more simply being an arrogant jerk. Maffeo Barbereni, who became Pope Urban VIII, was initially a supporter of Galileo, until Galileo published a book the Pope viewed as mocking him. In light of our modern views of freedom of speech, the Pope's reaction was extreme, but it was rather lenient by the standards of the time. Other men had been burned at the stake for less. Don't make the mistake of believing it was only the church that had a problem with Galileo, lots of people loathed Galileo, including most of his fellow scientists. He was the sort of egotist that routinely ridiculed any ideas he didn't come up with himself.

Pretty much just like you, grump. I know democrats in office are tools, too. Just less so, I'm sure. And that matters. I used to sort of admire the old guard Republican Party; Ike's. But it's been a long time since a Republican has impressed me.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by umbradiago

I'm not really a nut bar, but I like them, a little. I don't mind criticism. You're cool. So am I, now. I'm passionate, that's all, grumpy

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

I like that he is seemingly returning the church to a more compassion based belief. getting rid of something like 4 of the more conservative cardinals (?) on his counsel is was a good move.

Nothing wrong with passion, brother. let's just not take it out as anger on our assumed enemies. we all don't have to see eye to eye to work towards the same goals/causes within our environment. I think the left spends so much time dicing each other up because "you're not as vegan as I am," or "you don't listen the left approved music" or whatever meaningless nonsense that keeps us all divided that we never really get to strong because we spend all of our time bickering amongst ourselves.

For example, I hate all of the God talk that goes on within the democratic party but I tolerate it because I know they are better than republicans as far as my interests and my interests for society are concerned. so i shall vote democratic until repubs are extinguished and then I will hopefully be able to vote for a more viable progressive version of the democratic party (perhaps the green party) until the democrats are extinguished and then I can hopefully vote for a more viable progressive version of the green party and so on and so forth.
Just how I look at it.

Originally Posted by danhanegan

Originally Posted by umbradiago

Originally Posted by adelady

Any progress at all is something I suppose. I'm still suspicious, though.

I'm not suspicious, just resigned.

Even if, and that's a hell of a big If, Francis pushes further and better on the "option for the poor" which is pretty standard catholic doctrine anyway, it's pretty hard to push a calcified assembly of self-protective, ideologically committed, authoritarian, conformist bureaucrats to modify their attitudes, let alone their formalised practices. They'd need to be analytical, reflective, maybe a bit creative. I think it's too much to ask of them. He might be able to gradually change the general tone of some of the work they do. I'm pretty sure he'll get the finances in much better shape and introduce a bit of transparency and good audit practices. But they had their biggest chance to change direction back in the early 60s with John 23rd and the 2nd Vatican Council. They did some good stuff, but not enough to withstand the assaults in the following years from Ratzinger running the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the obsessions of John Paul. What they did to the liberation theology proponents in South America was nothing short of criminal. Liberation theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Oscar Romero will one day become a saint. How come it's taken so long - there are plenty of less worthy people who got the go ahead despite dying a long time after his assassination.

Individually, the Vatican staff might be really nice people. And so might the train that's coming towards you be fully loaded with kind and well-intentioned people. But it'll knock you flat and and tear you limb from limb regardless. It's unstoppable.

When Catholicism is defended, I often attack it; when it is attacked, I sometimes find myself defending it. Strange, I know. But, I would like to point-out that the church does come-around to admitting false doctrines, occasionally. It declared Galileo free of any wrong-doing................................in 1992. A bit too late to help the great man.

For what its worth, my take on the Galileo thing is that Galileo's scientific beliefs did not get him into trouble, it was more simply being an arrogant jerk. Maffeo Barbereni, who became Pope Urban VIII, was initially a supporter of Galileo, until Galileo published a book the Pope viewed as mocking him. In light of our modern views of freedom of speech, the Pope's reaction was extreme, but it was rather lenient by the standards of the time. Other men had been burned at the stake for less. Don't make the mistake of believing it was only the church that had a problem with Galileo, lots of people loathed Galileo, including most of his fellow scientists. He was the sort of egotist that routinely ridiculed any ideas he didn't come up with himself.

Agreed. Galileo taunted the Church to some extent, publishing the Dialogues and the Simplicio character, the pope in disguise. And he wasn't in chains, but allowed to see his daughter only occasionally. He tried to defy the Church, and was made to bow to it. At least he lived. Bruno was burned. Galileo's friend had become pope; I'd read a little about it.His arrogance doesn't bother me, though. Great minds don't bother with humility. A waste of time. He was not loved among the scientific community; sometimes that's professional jealousy. Galileo worked closely with Tycho Brahe, Dane. Brilliant guy.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

When he actually changes policies that are hurting people I'll be a lot more in support. A push for contraceptives and reproductive education in the developed world would be a good place to start.

Yes, and while he's at it he could try and ensure that lots more unborn babies get horribly killed. C'mon, Pope - catch up!

[sarcasm]Sams Moot is right, it is far more entertaining to let those babies be born and grow for a few years so we can watch them slowly starve to death. [/sarcasm]

In which part of the developed world is this happening?

Originally Posted by samsmoot

In which part of the developed world is this happening?

OK, I misread L.F.'s comment as developing world instead of developed world.
I will correct my comment to "... can lock them up in prisons and execute them."

Genuine. Compassionate. Well-intended, but a bit off-base. The best in a *LONG* time, probably 2,000 years.

That's all I'll say.

I do not have a strong opinion about him, but have some thoughts. I do respect him as Pope, first of all. I like his humility and simpleness. On the other hand, I am not crazy about his modernity and lack of respect for some religious tradition, but am not concerned about his differences on certain Vatican state level traditions.

This new pope is a far-out dude. He said he would baptize Martians.

"If … an expedition of Martians arrives and some of them come to us … and if one of them says: 'Me, I want to be baptised!', what would happen?" the pontiff jokingly speculated during Tuesday's morning mass. The church turns no one away, he confirmed, not even extraterrestrials.

At present I like his style but his preachings are so out of date

Apart from the out dated sanctimonious church he finds himself in charge of.. He's probably a very nice chap..

Video: Pope Francis likens child sex abuse to 'satanic Mass' - Telegraph

The word jerk comes to mind.

Please don't ban me, I thought it was fitting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPqqGSviZWc

Ah, but please not Benedict XVI. I'm a catholic myself (nominally) and I thought he was a good guy.

Some interesting comments about pets replacing children.

He's probably right, as well as much the commenter in the article has to say, but I very much disagree with the inference that it's a bad thing.

Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children | RealClearPolitics

Are those unfortunate folds in his scarf or are the swastikas in the scarf Photoshoped?
That aside Benedict really puts me off. He's the kind of old man I'm terrified of. I'm probably a jerk because he really just looks evil to me. I'm sure being part of the Hitler Youth didn't help his standing with me either. but even with that out, he really puts me ill-at-ease with his looks.

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

Please don't ban me, I thought it was fitting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPqqGSviZWc

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by Weterman

This is a religious question. And, you are an atheist.

No! I'm a humanist.
Atheist is label from a religious perspective, I don't label myself that way.

Originally Posted by Weterman

Why post here then? The only thing you did was insult people. Nothing useful was added to the topic from your post. The question was not "Is religion right or wrong?" The question was "What do you think of this pope?"

Of which I gave my opinion. Am I to keep my mouth shut, just because it upsets you.

Originally Posted by Weterman

You answer the question, but not to answer it. To insult people. If your only intent is to insult people in this forum, then why are you here?

To insult is to treat with disrespect, why should religious delusion deserve respect. What has it done to earn it. You took issue with my opinion, just because you think religion deserves respect, that is your problem not mine.
I did say if this is harsh think about the term delusional which is a belief maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument.
Stating the facts as they are isn't being insulting it's being truthful.
How can anybody in their right mind, trust another person who holds an imaginary concept above reality. You only have to take a look at religious history to know how evil it can be and is.
It's holy books are an incitement to violence.

Insulting it may appear to you. Truthful is what it is.

Would you respect and trust a person who held the tooth fairy in the same regard as a god? And it would not surprise me if there is someone out there somewhere who does!

The catholic church is by far the most charitable organization on Earth. Nothing even comes close to unseating it there. I disagree with a large number, probably most, of their fundamental doctrines but I respect that about them.

As for the current pope, he told the church to chill when it comes to homosexuality and contraceptives, and that not all dogma is created equal and heavily implied that in the scheme of things these are pretty unimportant. So I give him props for that.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

....

The catholic church is by far the most charitable organization on Earth. Nothing even comes close to unseating it there.

How did you work that out?

Align me with Roberttybob1. on this one.. You think the Roman Catholic Church is the Largest Charitable Organisation on Earth.. You are wrong. Best you do some research to show of this exaggeration. I could not agree with this..

Originally Posted by astromark

Align me with Roberttybob1. on this one.. You think the Roman Catholic Church is the Largest Charitable Organisation on Earth.. You are wrong. Best you do some research to show of this exaggeration. I could not agree with this..

It depends on your definition of charity, I suppose. From a purely financial position, the Catholic Church gives more money towards food, medical care, assistance, etc. than any other organization. The numbers are hard to get hard data for in other countries than the US as the US Catholic church keeps the best books. We can estimate worldwide, though. Anyway, the Catholic church gives away nearly 5 billion dollars to the poor in America alone. Not to mention how many cases they subsidize in their hospitals and schools, losing money on countless patients and students. This is just a portion of their charities. No one can boast their numbers.

I would ask who you think is the most charitable organization on Earth. Which organization is it? If you know I am wrong, you must know who is ahead of them.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Originally Posted by astromark

Align me with Roberttybob1. on this one.. You think the Roman Catholic Church is the Largest Charitable Organisation on Earth.. You are wrong. Best you do some research to show of this exaggeration. I could not agree with this..

It depends on your definition of charity, I suppose. From a purely financial position, the Catholic Church gives more money towards food, medical care, assistance, etc. than any other organization. The numbers are hard to get hard data for in other countries than the US as the US Catholic church keeps the best books. We can estimate worldwide, though. Anyway, the Catholic church gives away nearly 5 billion dollars to the poor in America alone. Not to mention how many cases they subsidize in their hospitals and schools, losing money on countless patients and students. This is just a portion of their charities. No one can boast their numbers.

I would ask who you think is the most charitable organization on Earth. Which organization is it? If you know I am wrong, you must know who is ahead of them.

It could be the largest charitable organization as for taxation exemption purposes, but is it the most charitable? That is what I was wanting to know.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Originally Posted by astromark

Align me with Roberttybob1. on this one.. You think the Roman Catholic Church is the Largest Charitable Organisation on Earth.. You are wrong. Best you do some research to show of this exaggeration. I could not agree with this..

It depends on your definition of charity, I suppose. From a purely financial position, the Catholic Church gives more money towards food, medical care, assistance, etc. than any other organization. The numbers are hard to get hard data for in other countries than the US as the US Catholic church keeps the best books. We can estimate worldwide, though. Anyway, the Catholic church gives away nearly 5 billion dollars to the poor in America alone. Not to mention how many cases they subsidize in their hospitals and schools, losing money on countless patients and students. This is just a portion of their charities. No one can boast their numbers.

I would ask who you think is the most charitable organization on Earth. Which organization is it? If you know I am wrong, you must know who is ahead of them.

It could be the largest charitable organization as for taxation exemption purposes, but is it the most charitable? That is what I was wanting to know.

The Catholic Church pays no taxes regardless, so it's charities are not for that purpose.

The Red Cross or UNICEF or maybe the U N itself.. do these organizations not fit your pallet.. The are none profit organizations
running on the charity of others. I do not see the Catholic Church as the grand provider to the poverty stricken of the world.
Not to suggest for a moment that much good work is not being done by those of the Catholic Church USA..
Maybe we just see things from different places.

Originally Posted by astromark

The Red Cross or UNICEF or maybe the U N itself.. do these organizations not fit your pallet.. The are none profit organizations
running on the charity of others. I do not see the Catholic Church as the grand provider to the poverty stricken of the world.
Not to suggest for a moment that much good work is not being done by those of the Catholic Church USA..
Maybe we just see things from different places.

It is possible UNICEF or the UN does more good work, I can't say. But from a numbers standpoint, the Catholic Church donates more money and resources. This is a crude metric, I'll admit, but who does more good is subjective enough that it is hard to measure. The Catholic Church spends more on charity than the UN, I'm reasonably sure.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

The catholic church is by far the most charitable organization on Earth. Nothing even comes close to unseating it there. I disagree with a large number, probably most, of their fundamental doctrines but I respect that about them.

They have a had a lot of time to build on it, however their record on the converse outweighs that by miles.
Anyhow with every charitable thing there comes an agenda. Convert or you don't get this, prey or you don't get fed. etc etc..
How do you think most people converted, the ones that weren't converted by force where converted by favour.

Religion is the bane of humanity. It kills literally. Nothing good can nor does come from it.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by SowZ37

The catholic church is by far the most charitable organization on Earth. Nothing even comes close to unseating it there. I disagree with a large number, probably most, of their fundamental doctrines but I respect that about them.

They have a had a lot of time to build on it, however their record on the converse outweighs that by miles.
Anyhow with every charitable thing there comes an agenda. Convert or you don't get this, prey or you don't get fed. etc etc..
How do you think most people converted, the ones that weren't converted by force where converted by favour.

Religion is the bane of humanity. It kills literally. Nothing good can nor does come from it.

That nothing good can or does come from it is a nonsense statement. I can understand saying that the bad outweighs the good, but absolutely no good can possible come from it? What balderdash.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by SowZ37

The catholic church is by far the most charitable organization on Earth. Nothing even comes close to unseating it there. I disagree with a large number, probably most, of their fundamental doctrines but I respect that about them.

They have a had a lot of time to build on it, however their record on the converse outweighs that by miles.
Anyhow with every charitable thing there comes an agenda. Convert or you don't get this, prey or you don't get fed. etc etc..
How do you think most people converted, the ones that weren't converted by force where converted by favour.

Religion is the bane of humanity. It kills literally. Nothing good can nor does come from it.

That nothing good can or does come from it is a nonsense statement. I can understand saying that the bad outweighs the good, but absolutely no good can possible come from it? What balderdash.

Well you're welcome to show what good has come from it. Knock yourself out!

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by SowZ37

The catholic church is by far the most charitable organization on Earth. Nothing even comes close to unseating it there. I disagree with a large number, probably most, of their fundamental doctrines but I respect that about them.

They have a had a lot of time to build on it, however their record on the converse outweighs that by miles.
Anyhow with every charitable thing there comes an agenda. Convert or you don't get this, prey or you don't get fed. etc etc..
How do you think most people converted, the ones that weren't converted by force where converted by favour.

Religion is the bane of humanity. It kills literally. Nothing good can nor does come from it.

That nothing good can or does come from it is a nonsense statement. I can understand saying that the bad outweighs the good, but absolutely no good can possible come from it? What balderdash.

Well you're welcome to show what good has come from it. Knock yourself out!

That no compassionate deed has ever been performed by someone because of their religious values, that no religion has ever inspired great works of art, that religion has never been a source of comfort to a dying person or their relatives, that there has never been any legitimate philosophical/technological/scientific idea that had its seeds planted in religious teachings, etc. are all nonsense statements and follow directly from the statement that nothing good has ever come from religion at all.

Unfortunately it was the Catholic Church that was responsible in large measure for the collapse of the USSR.

That was a good that came from that church ,like it or not.

The Pope happened to be Polish and used this fact to mobilize the Polish people.

As Stalin I think said "how many divisions has the Pope of Rome ?" .It was too many for his successors.

Not that I am supporting religious organisations but it pays to know your enemy.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Originally Posted by pavlos

Well you're welcome to show what good has come from it. Knock yourself out!

That no compassionate deed has ever been performed by someone because of their religious values

We could never know that! As we could never know their true agenda.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

that no religion has ever inspired great works of art

People create and they create about the things they are passionate about or indoctrinated into. but I wouldn't claim that was good. Some of the imaged depict violent acts, it is clear where the inspiration is coming from isn't it. If those artist had, had cameras they would be filming and photographing the violence that is religion.
You're noticing the rights things, just shift the point of view you're looking at it from.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

that religion has never been a source of comfort to a dying person or their relatives

We cant know for sure whether it was or wasn't but as the people where indoctrinated into the religion then it would be based on bias

Originally Posted by SowZ37

that there has never been any legitimate philosophical/technological/scientific idea that had its seeds planted in religious teachings, etc.

If religion wasn't there, science would have still progressed, and much further. Throughout its history religion has retarded science.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

are all nonsense statements

Exactly.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

and follow directly from the statement that nothing good has ever come from religion at all.

As said you are welcome to show what good has come from it.

So basically with or without religion all those things would have still happened, religion is simply not needed.



“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg

Originally Posted by geordief

Unfortunately it was the Catholic Church that was responsible in large measure for the collapse of the USSR.

Some how I think you are talking absolute nonsense, could you site your sources, thank you.

And to say it was a good, is foolish as it was Christianity that started communism, read the book of Acts, it is a communist manifesto.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by geordief

Unfortunately it was the Catholic Church that was responsible in large measure for the collapse of the USSR.

Some how I think you are talking absolute nonsense, could you site your sources, thank you.

And to say it was a good, is foolish as it was Christianity that started communism, read the book of Acts, it is a communist manifesto.

Sources? It is common knowledge that "The Pope happened to be Polish and used this fact to mobilize the Polish people". You need a "source" to substantiate that?

I don't give a monkey's who "created communism" .It doesn't mean that whoever contributed to its demise didn't perform a service .

Your blanket condemnation does no one a service (even if I would be attracted to that "view" we do have to be honest and recognize that there are good men and women in all occupations )

Can't think why I would want to "read the book of Acts". I am happy to remain ignorant.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Originally Posted by pavlos

Well you're welcome to show what good has come from it. Knock yourself out!

That no compassionate deed has ever been performed by someone because of their religious values

We could never know that! As we could never know their true agenda.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

that no religion has ever inspired great works of art

People create and they create about the things they are passionate about or indoctrinated into. but I wouldn't claim that was good. Some of the imaged depict violent acts, it is clear where the inspiration is coming from isn't it. If those artist had, had cameras they would be filming and photographing the violence that is religion.
You're noticing the rights things, just shift the point of view you're looking at it from.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

that religion has never been a source of comfort to a dying person or their relatives

We cant know for sure whether it was or wasn't but as the people where indoctrinated into the religion then it would be based on bias

Originally Posted by SowZ37

that there has never been any legitimate philosophical/technological/scientific idea that had its seeds planted in religious teachings, etc.

If religion wasn't there, science would have still progressed, and much further. Throughout its history religion has retarded science.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

are all nonsense statements

Exactly.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

and follow directly from the statement that nothing good has ever come from religion at all.

As said you are welcome to show what good has come from it.

So basically with or without religion all those things would have still happened, religion is simply not needed.



“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg

Sure, good things and evil things would still happen. But it's very silly to think that every single good thing that has ever been inspired by religion would have happened in a world without religion.

My fellow contributors have been telling porkies.. ( lies ) That the Catholic Church is the worlds largest Charity, Would depend on you definitions of charity.
That the Catholic Church was instrumental in the dismantling of the USSR... Where did you get that ?
A more interesting question; Not what I think of the Pope., but what does he think of me ?

Originally Posted by astromark

My fellow contributors have been telling porkies.. ( lies ) That the Catholic Church is the worlds largest Charity, Would depend on you definitions of charity.
That the Catholic Church was instrumental in the dismantling of the USSR... Where did you get that ?
A more interesting question; Not what I think of the Pope., but what does he think of me ?

Don't say I've been telling lies. I said the Catholic Church is the world's largest charity, then I gave my definition of that charity, (who gives the most money and resources.) This was a true statement, and I defined my terms. That you have a different definition of charity does not make my statement dishonest in any way.

Originally Posted by geordief

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by geordief

Unfortunately it was the Catholic Church that was responsible in large measure for the collapse of the USSR.

Some how I think you are talking absolute nonsense, could you site your sources, thank you.

And to say it was a good, is foolish as it was Christianity that started communism, read the book of Acts, it is a communist manifesto.

Sources? It is common knowledge

To whom!

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Sure, good things and evil things would still happen. But it's very silly to think that every single good thing that has ever been inspired by religion would have happened in a world without religion.

Yes that would be silly. if it was inspired by religion, then religion would be it's basis, wouldn't it
What I said was "People create and they create about the things they are passionate about or indoctrinated into. But I wouldn't claim that was good.
Religion is clearly not needed, things will happen regardless.

I'd like to see a source for the Catholic church as the largest charity. In most list I could find of charity organizations etc, those Catholic didn't even make the top ten.

I'd think the largest charity would probably be the UN. But of course, it runs on donations so to speak...

Originally Posted by astromark

My fellow contributors have been telling porkies.. ( lies ).....................
......................
That the Catholic Church was instrumental in the dismantling of the USSR... Where did you get that ?

I explained that in my post #59 .It is very tedious.I am not going to expand on it.You are welcome to agree or disagree.The same applies to Pavlos.
Between the two of you you have called me foolish and a liar . I won't reply to either of your posts from now on.