Options

Francis Says Relax

1457910100

Posts

  • Options
    The Otaku SuppositoryThe Otaku Suppository Bawstan New EnglandRegistered User regular
    edited February 2013
    SimBen wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    See, part of me actually wants a tough pope. Or at least one who when accused of saying disparaging remarks about other religions, simply responds, "I'm the fucking Pope". Because that always seemed a bit ridiculous when people act like the man needs to be tolerant of all other religions. He is the leader of his religion (set aside the Catholic/Protestant split for a second) as laid out in the early centuries of the church. His main duty above all else is to follow scripture. And right there in the second book it lays out rules, which first among them says 'I am the lord thy god and you shall have no other gods before me'. So if he wants to stand there and tell some other dude you're wrong and your gods are bullshit, he should be allowed without people shitting their pants and screaming "OMG Pope, how y u say that???!!!".

    Of course this leads to problems when I would also like to see a pope who would be willing to throw out Leviticus and Deuteronomy as antiquated drivel from an intolerant age. But I suppose that would get in the way of a tough Pope with a strict interpretation of the Bible as God's Word.

    Yeah except this is precisely the kind of bullshit that leads to genocide. Oops.

    Except the genocides of the last centuries have been based on political motives, national boundaries, and racial terms.

    But assuming the Pope would be allowed to reclaim the Papal States and then some, raise an army, declare war on another religion w/o any support from the Bible regarding conversion by violence, and absolutely no interference from the international community, then yes, this would lead to genocide.

    Let me put this another way.

    Entrenched antisemitism, spread and supported in no small part by the Catholic church, was a major factor that led to the Holocaust.

    The Pope doesn't have to personally exterminate a people to take a part of responsibility when people listen to what he says and then do awful, awful things. This is why modern Popes are more careful than they used to about what they say (and yet, still not careful enough, see AIDS).

    Modern antisemitism which was a major factor that led to the Holocaust is much different from the antisemitic beliefs that circulated during the Middle Ages into the 16th century. Antisemitism in the late 19th Century and 20th Century was more secular, based around citizenship, economic factors, racial ideology, and cultural differences rather than religion and had little to do with the Catholic church.

    Yes but the church was right there not saying much while all that shit was happening.

    They were basically "oh but they're Jews so who cares right"

    that was basically carte blanche for Europe to not care about what happened to them

    and people should the fuck have cared.

    You mean like the "With Burning Concern" encyclical concerning the condemnation of the Nazi racial policy the church issued in 1937? The same one that was written in German rather than Latin and read throughout every Catholic church on the same Sunday that contained one of the strongest condemnations ever from the church?

    The same church that saved upwards of 600-700,000 Jews?

    The church that continually protested the treatment of the Jews in the 1940s?

    The church that spoke out against the holocaust in 1942?

    The same church that hid a number of Italian Jews within its networks when the Germans invaded Italy?

    I'm not sure what you were exactly expecting them to do? And I think you're giving the church far more power and clout than it actually had. The church had significantly declined in power and influence over the centuries before. That's why antisemitism had become a problem of the state, not the church. Not to mention as a neutral power/party literally in the heart of one of the Axis nations, the church was quite limited in what it could say or do. Heck, Hitler even had a plan at one point in the middle of the war to invade the Vatican and kidnap the Pope and the curia, so there's that.

    There were a bunch of institutions that basically gave Germany carte blanche. Most of them would be called the countries of Europe, the other would be the US. The church did what it could and a great number of Christians within occupied countries did what they could to hide and protect Jews as well.

    So to say the church was implicit is rather unfair and untrue.

    The Otaku Suppository on
  • Options
    SimBenSimBen Hodor? Hodor Hodor.Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    I want

    a Hispanic Pope

    Probably the second-most likely outcome, after a white one.

    If by Hispanic, you mean Spanish.

    A Brazillian Pope isn't such a farfetched idea, either.

    sig.gif
  • Options
    MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    my church has ravaged the massive people of an entire continent and systematically killed multiple civilizations

    now has one of the largest if not the largest Catholic population on the planet

    if another European is picked I will be very upset

    It would be nice to see them expand beyond the continent of Europe for the next Pope, I just don't see it happening. But I'm really not baseing that on anything other than a gut feeling.

  • Options
    SimBenSimBen Hodor? Hodor Hodor.Registered User regular
    Rat Zinger sounds like a book of bad puns about rodents.

    Every single time I hear it, I think of this

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP8QdFttugg

    sig.gif
  • Options
    LanglyLangly Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    my church has ravaged the massive people of an entire continent and systematically killed multiple civilizations

    now has one of the largest if not the largest Catholic population on the planet

    if another European is picked I will be very upset

    It would be nice to see them expand beyond the continent of Europe for the next Pope, I just don't see it happening. But I'm really not baseing that on anything other than a gut feeling.

    Professor today said since this will be a short time span it will probably be European

  • Options
    jippeejippee Registered User regular
    Rffff big deal. so last week. Our Queen abdicated days before your hipster pope.

    Nellie the elephant packed her trunk
    and trundled off to the jungle
    off she rode with a trumpety trump
    trump trump trump



  • Options
    SimBenSimBen Hodor? Hodor Hodor.Registered User regular
    SimBen wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    See, part of me actually wants a tough pope. Or at least one who when accused of saying disparaging remarks about other religions, simply responds, "I'm the fucking Pope". Because that always seemed a bit ridiculous when people act like the man needs to be tolerant of all other religions. He is the leader of his religion (set aside the Catholic/Protestant split for a second) as laid out in the early centuries of the church. His main duty above all else is to follow scripture. And right there in the second book it lays out rules, which first among them says 'I am the lord thy god and you shall have no other gods before me'. So if he wants to stand there and tell some other dude you're wrong and your gods are bullshit, he should be allowed without people shitting their pants and screaming "OMG Pope, how y u say that???!!!".

    Of course this leads to problems when I would also like to see a pope who would be willing to throw out Leviticus and Deuteronomy as antiquated drivel from an intolerant age. But I suppose that would get in the way of a tough Pope with a strict interpretation of the Bible as God's Word.

    Yeah except this is precisely the kind of bullshit that leads to genocide. Oops.

    Except the genocides of the last centuries have been based on political motives, national boundaries, and racial terms.

    But assuming the Pope would be allowed to reclaim the Papal States and then some, raise an army, declare war on another religion w/o any support from the Bible regarding conversion by violence, and absolutely no interference from the international community, then yes, this would lead to genocide.

    Let me put this another way.

    Entrenched antisemitism, spread and supported in no small part by the Catholic church, was a major factor that led to the Holocaust.

    The Pope doesn't have to personally exterminate a people to take a part of responsibility when people listen to what he says and then do awful, awful things. This is why modern Popes are more careful than they used to about what they say (and yet, still not careful enough, see AIDS).

    Modern antisemitism which was a major factor that led to the Holocaust is much different from the antisemitic beliefs that circulated during the Middle Ages into the 16th century. Antisemitism in the late 19th Century and 20th Century was more secular, based around citizenship, economic factors, racial ideology, and cultural differences rather than religion and had little to do with the Catholic church.

    Yes but the church was right there not saying much while all that shit was happening.

    They were basically "oh but they're Jews so who cares right"

    that was basically carte blanche for Europe to not care about what happened to them

    and people should the fuck have cared.

    You mean like the "With Burning Concern" encyclical concerning the condemnation of the Nazi racial policy the church issued in 1937? The same one that was written in German rather than Latin and read throughout every Catholic church on the same Sunday that contained one of the strongest condemnations ever from the church?

    The same church that saved upwards of 600-700,000 Jews?

    The church that continually protested the treatment of the Jews in the 1940s?

    The church that spoke out against the holocaust in 1942?

    The same church that hid a number of Italian Jews within its networks when the Germans invaded Italy?

    I'm not sure what you were exactly expecting them to do? And I think you're giving the church far more power and clout than it actually had. The church had significantly declined in power and influence over the centuries before. That's why antisemitism had become a problem of the state, not the church. Not to mention as a neutral power/party literally in the heart of one of the Axis nations, the church was quite limited in what it could say or do. Heck, Hitler even had a plan at one point in the middle of the war to invade the Vatican and kidnap the Pope and the curia, so there's that.

    There were a bunch of institutions that basically gave Germany carte blanche. Most of them would be called the countries of Europe, the other would be the US. The church did what it could and a great number of Christians within occupied countries did what they could to hide and protect Jews as well.

    So to say the church was implicit is rather unfair and untrue.

    Okay you seem well-researched and to be fair my argument was mostly based on half-recalled assumptions so okay you win.

    The current Pope was totally a Nazi though.

    sig.gif
  • Options
    PiptheFairPiptheFair Frequently not in boats. Registered User regular
    SimBen wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    See, part of me actually wants a tough pope. Or at least one who when accused of saying disparaging remarks about other religions, simply responds, "I'm the fucking Pope". Because that always seemed a bit ridiculous when people act like the man needs to be tolerant of all other religions. He is the leader of his religion (set aside the Catholic/Protestant split for a second) as laid out in the early centuries of the church. His main duty above all else is to follow scripture. And right there in the second book it lays out rules, which first among them says 'I am the lord thy god and you shall have no other gods before me'. So if he wants to stand there and tell some other dude you're wrong and your gods are bullshit, he should be allowed without people shitting their pants and screaming "OMG Pope, how y u say that???!!!".

    Of course this leads to problems when I would also like to see a pope who would be willing to throw out Leviticus and Deuteronomy as antiquated drivel from an intolerant age. But I suppose that would get in the way of a tough Pope with a strict interpretation of the Bible as God's Word.

    Yeah except this is precisely the kind of bullshit that leads to genocide. Oops.

    Except the genocides of the last centuries have been based on political motives, national boundaries, and racial terms.

    But assuming the Pope would be allowed to reclaim the Papal States and then some, raise an army, declare war on another religion w/o any support from the Bible regarding conversion by violence, and absolutely no interference from the international community, then yes, this would lead to genocide.

    Let me put this another way.

    Entrenched antisemitism, spread and supported in no small part by the Catholic church, was a major factor that led to the Holocaust.

    The Pope doesn't have to personally exterminate a people to take a part of responsibility when people listen to what he says and then do awful, awful things. This is why modern Popes are more careful than they used to about what they say (and yet, still not careful enough, see AIDS).

    Modern antisemitism which was a major factor that led to the Holocaust is much different from the antisemitic beliefs that circulated during the Middle Ages into the 16th century. Antisemitism in the late 19th Century and 20th Century was more secular, based around citizenship, economic factors, racial ideology, and cultural differences rather than religion and had little to do with the Catholic church.

    Yes but the church was right there not saying much while all that shit was happening.

    They were basically "oh but they're Jews so who cares right"

    that was basically carte blanche for Europe to not care about what happened to them

    and people should the fuck have cared.

    You mean like the "With Burning Concern" encyclical concerning the condemnation of the Nazi racial policy the church issued in 1937? The same one that was written in German rather than Latin and read throughout every Catholic church on the same Sunday that contained one of the strongest condemnations ever from the church?

    The same church that saved upwards of 600-700,000 Jews?

    The church that continually protested the treatment of the Jews in the 1940s?

    The church that spoke out against the holocaust in 1942?

    The same church that hid a number of Italian Jews within its networks when the Germans invaded Italy?

    I'm not sure what you were exactly expecting them to do? And I think you're giving the church far more power and clout than it actually had. The church had significantly declined in power and influence over the centuries before. That's why antisemitism had become a problem of the state, not the church. Not to mention as a neutral power/party literally in the heart of one of the Axis nations, the church was quite limited in what it could say or do. Heck, Hitler even had a plan at one point in the middle of the war to invade the Vatican and kidnap the Pope and the curia, so there's that.

    There were a bunch of institutions that basically gave Germany carte blanche. Most of them would be called the countries of Europe, the other would be the US. The church did what it could and a great number of Christians within occupied countries did what they could to hide and protect Jews as well.

    So to say the church was implicit is rather unfair and untrue.

    Okay you seem well-researched and to be fair my argument was mostly based on half-recalled assumptions so okay you win.

    The current Pope was totally a Nazi though.

    no

    he was a member of the hitler youth which was all but compulsory

  • Options
    SimBenSimBen Hodor? Hodor Hodor.Registered User regular
    PiptheFair wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    See, part of me actually wants a tough pope. Or at least one who when accused of saying disparaging remarks about other religions, simply responds, "I'm the fucking Pope". Because that always seemed a bit ridiculous when people act like the man needs to be tolerant of all other religions. He is the leader of his religion (set aside the Catholic/Protestant split for a second) as laid out in the early centuries of the church. His main duty above all else is to follow scripture. And right there in the second book it lays out rules, which first among them says 'I am the lord thy god and you shall have no other gods before me'. So if he wants to stand there and tell some other dude you're wrong and your gods are bullshit, he should be allowed without people shitting their pants and screaming "OMG Pope, how y u say that???!!!".

    Of course this leads to problems when I would also like to see a pope who would be willing to throw out Leviticus and Deuteronomy as antiquated drivel from an intolerant age. But I suppose that would get in the way of a tough Pope with a strict interpretation of the Bible as God's Word.

    Yeah except this is precisely the kind of bullshit that leads to genocide. Oops.

    Except the genocides of the last centuries have been based on political motives, national boundaries, and racial terms.

    But assuming the Pope would be allowed to reclaim the Papal States and then some, raise an army, declare war on another religion w/o any support from the Bible regarding conversion by violence, and absolutely no interference from the international community, then yes, this would lead to genocide.

    Let me put this another way.

    Entrenched antisemitism, spread and supported in no small part by the Catholic church, was a major factor that led to the Holocaust.

    The Pope doesn't have to personally exterminate a people to take a part of responsibility when people listen to what he says and then do awful, awful things. This is why modern Popes are more careful than they used to about what they say (and yet, still not careful enough, see AIDS).

    Modern antisemitism which was a major factor that led to the Holocaust is much different from the antisemitic beliefs that circulated during the Middle Ages into the 16th century. Antisemitism in the late 19th Century and 20th Century was more secular, based around citizenship, economic factors, racial ideology, and cultural differences rather than religion and had little to do with the Catholic church.

    Yes but the church was right there not saying much while all that shit was happening.

    They were basically "oh but they're Jews so who cares right"

    that was basically carte blanche for Europe to not care about what happened to them

    and people should the fuck have cared.

    You mean like the "With Burning Concern" encyclical concerning the condemnation of the Nazi racial policy the church issued in 1937? The same one that was written in German rather than Latin and read throughout every Catholic church on the same Sunday that contained one of the strongest condemnations ever from the church?

    The same church that saved upwards of 600-700,000 Jews?

    The church that continually protested the treatment of the Jews in the 1940s?

    The church that spoke out against the holocaust in 1942?

    The same church that hid a number of Italian Jews within its networks when the Germans invaded Italy?

    I'm not sure what you were exactly expecting them to do? And I think you're giving the church far more power and clout than it actually had. The church had significantly declined in power and influence over the centuries before. That's why antisemitism had become a problem of the state, not the church. Not to mention as a neutral power/party literally in the heart of one of the Axis nations, the church was quite limited in what it could say or do. Heck, Hitler even had a plan at one point in the middle of the war to invade the Vatican and kidnap the Pope and the curia, so there's that.

    There were a bunch of institutions that basically gave Germany carte blanche. Most of them would be called the countries of Europe, the other would be the US. The church did what it could and a great number of Christians within occupied countries did what they could to hide and protect Jews as well.

    So to say the church was implicit is rather unfair and untrue.

    Okay you seem well-researched and to be fair my argument was mostly based on half-recalled assumptions so okay you win.

    The current Pope was totally a Nazi though.

    no

    he was a member of the hitler youth which was all but compulsory

    Semantics.

    (don't get into a thing because I'm being half-facetious)

    sig.gif
  • Options
    The Otaku SuppositoryThe Otaku Suppository Bawstan New EnglandRegistered User regular
    edited February 2013
    TOO LATE. WALL OF TEXT IMMINENT.

    YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.

    The Otaku Suppository on
  • Options
    SolarSolar Registered User regular
    The Catholic Church played more than a part in the development of anti-semitism in Europe, the same anti-semitism that Nazism was based off

    and despite Nazism's pagan elements, there was numerous supporters of Nazism in the Catholic Church

    there were also numerous opponents of it and many who spoke out and attempted to defend the Jewish people as well as other groups

    not a few Catholic Priests ended up in concentration camps

    basically: like any historical situation involving a religion which millions of people adhere to and thousands of people form the structure of, there is no hard yes or no answer

  • Options
    KarlKarl Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    The Catholic Church played more than a part in the development of anti-semitism in Europe, the same anti-semitism that Nazism was based off

    and despite Nazism's pagan elements, there was numerous supporters of Nazism in the Catholic Church

    there were also numerous opponents of it and many who spoke out and attempted to defend the Jewish people as well as other groups

    not a few Catholic Priests ended up in concentration camps

    basically: like any historical situation involving a religion which millions of people adhere to and thousands of people form the structure of, there is no hard yes or no answer

    You take your balanced view points and get the fuck out of here. This is the internet.

    Nah I'm kidding you're alright

  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    Darmak wrote: »
    YaYa wrote: »
    Darmak wrote: »
    Wait, the pope changes his name when he takes office or whatever?

    he has a real name and then he gets a pope name

    Ratzinger=Benedict XVI

    I'll be damned

    Kings sort of do the same thing, or at least that's what I was led to believe by "The King's Speech" (everybody calls him Albert/Bertie when he's a prince, then he becomes King George VI. Although princes have like a hundred generic white first names, so George was probably already in there somewhere).

  • Options
    ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt Registered User, Moderator mod
    SimBen wrote: »
    He could just come right out and say "I want this guy to be the next Pope"

    and then the Conclave will vote for that guy

    this is probably what's gonna happen

    That would be even more unprecedented than a papal resignation. These days trying to interfere with a conclave gets Catholics excommunicated, something I suspect the former head of the Inquisition is probably just a little aware of.

    I really, really don't see that kind of open politicking going on.
    Langly wrote: »
    Darmak wrote: »
    Wait, the pope changes his name when he takes office or whatever?

    did you think that dudes were just named Pius and Innocent?

    Popes went by their birth names for most of the first few centuries, so there actually were some people who grew up answering to "Pius" or "Innocentius." The later guys, of course, are naming themselves after their predecessors.

  • Options
    Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    I don't care who the next Pope is unless a miracle happens and they elect someone who isn't a total reactionary. I mean, they've done it once or twice so it could happen but I'm not holding my breath.

  • Options
    ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular
    Benny the Rat is leaving?

    Celestine V is the Pope that just keeps on giving.

    Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
  • Options
    jippeejippee Registered User regular
    edited February 2013

    It is sort of amazing that John, Paul, Dave and George got out of style. Being all biblical and such. No, the Pope has to go all Pius XII and Gregorius on us.

    jippee on
    Nellie the elephant packed her trunk
    and trundled off to the jungle
    off she rode with a trumpety trump
    trump trump trump



  • Options
    DaMoonRulzDaMoonRulz Mare ImbriumRegistered User regular
    SimBen wrote: »
    PiptheFair wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    See, part of me actually wants a tough pope. Or at least one who when accused of saying disparaging remarks about other religions, simply responds, "I'm the fucking Pope". Because that always seemed a bit ridiculous when people act like the man needs to be tolerant of all other religions. He is the leader of his religion (set aside the Catholic/Protestant split for a second) as laid out in the early centuries of the church. His main duty above all else is to follow scripture. And right there in the second book it lays out rules, which first among them says 'I am the lord thy god and you shall have no other gods before me'. So if he wants to stand there and tell some other dude you're wrong and your gods are bullshit, he should be allowed without people shitting their pants and screaming "OMG Pope, how y u say that???!!!".

    Of course this leads to problems when I would also like to see a pope who would be willing to throw out Leviticus and Deuteronomy as antiquated drivel from an intolerant age. But I suppose that would get in the way of a tough Pope with a strict interpretation of the Bible as God's Word.

    Yeah except this is precisely the kind of bullshit that leads to genocide. Oops.

    Except the genocides of the last centuries have been based on political motives, national boundaries, and racial terms.

    But assuming the Pope would be allowed to reclaim the Papal States and then some, raise an army, declare war on another religion w/o any support from the Bible regarding conversion by violence, and absolutely no interference from the international community, then yes, this would lead to genocide.

    Let me put this another way.

    Entrenched antisemitism, spread and supported in no small part by the Catholic church, was a major factor that led to the Holocaust.

    The Pope doesn't have to personally exterminate a people to take a part of responsibility when people listen to what he says and then do awful, awful things. This is why modern Popes are more careful than they used to about what they say (and yet, still not careful enough, see AIDS).

    Modern antisemitism which was a major factor that led to the Holocaust is much different from the antisemitic beliefs that circulated during the Middle Ages into the 16th century. Antisemitism in the late 19th Century and 20th Century was more secular, based around citizenship, economic factors, racial ideology, and cultural differences rather than religion and had little to do with the Catholic church.

    Yes but the church was right there not saying much while all that shit was happening.

    They were basically "oh but they're Jews so who cares right"

    that was basically carte blanche for Europe to not care about what happened to them

    and people should the fuck have cared.

    You mean like the "With Burning Concern" encyclical concerning the condemnation of the Nazi racial policy the church issued in 1937? The same one that was written in German rather than Latin and read throughout every Catholic church on the same Sunday that contained one of the strongest condemnations ever from the church?

    The same church that saved upwards of 600-700,000 Jews?

    The church that continually protested the treatment of the Jews in the 1940s?

    The church that spoke out against the holocaust in 1942?

    The same church that hid a number of Italian Jews within its networks when the Germans invaded Italy?

    I'm not sure what you were exactly expecting them to do? And I think you're giving the church far more power and clout than it actually had. The church had significantly declined in power and influence over the centuries before. That's why antisemitism had become a problem of the state, not the church. Not to mention as a neutral power/party literally in the heart of one of the Axis nations, the church was quite limited in what it could say or do. Heck, Hitler even had a plan at one point in the middle of the war to invade the Vatican and kidnap the Pope and the curia, so there's that.

    There were a bunch of institutions that basically gave Germany carte blanche. Most of them would be called the countries of Europe, the other would be the US. The church did what it could and a great number of Christians within occupied countries did what they could to hide and protect Jews as well.

    So to say the church was implicit is rather unfair and untrue.

    Okay you seem well-researched and to be fair my argument was mostly based on half-recalled assumptions so okay you win.

    The current Pope was totally a Nazi though.

    no

    he was a member of the hitler youth which was all but compulsory

    Semantics.

    (don't get into a thing because I'm being half-facetious)

    I know this may offend some people, but I'm Anti-Semantic

    3basnids3lf9.jpg




  • Options
    YaYaYaYa Decent. Registered User regular
    DaMoonRulz wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    PiptheFair wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    See, part of me actually wants a tough pope. Or at least one who when accused of saying disparaging remarks about other religions, simply responds, "I'm the fucking Pope". Because that always seemed a bit ridiculous when people act like the man needs to be tolerant of all other religions. He is the leader of his religion (set aside the Catholic/Protestant split for a second) as laid out in the early centuries of the church. His main duty above all else is to follow scripture. And right there in the second book it lays out rules, which first among them says 'I am the lord thy god and you shall have no other gods before me'. So if he wants to stand there and tell some other dude you're wrong and your gods are bullshit, he should be allowed without people shitting their pants and screaming "OMG Pope, how y u say that???!!!".

    Of course this leads to problems when I would also like to see a pope who would be willing to throw out Leviticus and Deuteronomy as antiquated drivel from an intolerant age. But I suppose that would get in the way of a tough Pope with a strict interpretation of the Bible as God's Word.

    Yeah except this is precisely the kind of bullshit that leads to genocide. Oops.

    Except the genocides of the last centuries have been based on political motives, national boundaries, and racial terms.

    But assuming the Pope would be allowed to reclaim the Papal States and then some, raise an army, declare war on another religion w/o any support from the Bible regarding conversion by violence, and absolutely no interference from the international community, then yes, this would lead to genocide.

    Let me put this another way.

    Entrenched antisemitism, spread and supported in no small part by the Catholic church, was a major factor that led to the Holocaust.

    The Pope doesn't have to personally exterminate a people to take a part of responsibility when people listen to what he says and then do awful, awful things. This is why modern Popes are more careful than they used to about what they say (and yet, still not careful enough, see AIDS).

    Modern antisemitism which was a major factor that led to the Holocaust is much different from the antisemitic beliefs that circulated during the Middle Ages into the 16th century. Antisemitism in the late 19th Century and 20th Century was more secular, based around citizenship, economic factors, racial ideology, and cultural differences rather than religion and had little to do with the Catholic church.

    Yes but the church was right there not saying much while all that shit was happening.

    They were basically "oh but they're Jews so who cares right"

    that was basically carte blanche for Europe to not care about what happened to them

    and people should the fuck have cared.

    You mean like the "With Burning Concern" encyclical concerning the condemnation of the Nazi racial policy the church issued in 1937? The same one that was written in German rather than Latin and read throughout every Catholic church on the same Sunday that contained one of the strongest condemnations ever from the church?

    The same church that saved upwards of 600-700,000 Jews?

    The church that continually protested the treatment of the Jews in the 1940s?

    The church that spoke out against the holocaust in 1942?

    The same church that hid a number of Italian Jews within its networks when the Germans invaded Italy?

    I'm not sure what you were exactly expecting them to do? And I think you're giving the church far more power and clout than it actually had. The church had significantly declined in power and influence over the centuries before. That's why antisemitism had become a problem of the state, not the church. Not to mention as a neutral power/party literally in the heart of one of the Axis nations, the church was quite limited in what it could say or do. Heck, Hitler even had a plan at one point in the middle of the war to invade the Vatican and kidnap the Pope and the curia, so there's that.

    There were a bunch of institutions that basically gave Germany carte blanche. Most of them would be called the countries of Europe, the other would be the US. The church did what it could and a great number of Christians within occupied countries did what they could to hide and protect Jews as well.

    So to say the church was implicit is rather unfair and untrue.

    Okay you seem well-researched and to be fair my argument was mostly based on half-recalled assumptions so okay you win.

    The current Pope was totally a Nazi though.

    no

    he was a member of the hitler youth which was all but compulsory

    Semantics.

    (don't get into a thing because I'm being half-facetious)

    I know this may offend some people, but I'm Anti-Semantic

    reported

  • Options
    SimBenSimBen Hodor? Hodor Hodor.Registered User regular
    jippee wrote: »
    It is sort of amazing that John, Paul, Dave and George got out of style. Being all biblical and such. No, the Pope has to go all Pius XII and Gregorius on us.

    I really, really want the next Pope to be Ringo I.

    sig.gif
  • Options
    ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt Registered User, Moderator mod
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Kings sort of do the same thing, or at least that's what I was led to believe by "The King's Speech" (everybody calls him Albert/Bertie when he's a prince, then he becomes King George VI. Although princes have like a hundred generic white first names, so George was probably already in there somewhere).

    George VI was born Albert Frederick Arthur George, so yeah, "in there somewhere." Once you go about 150-200 years back the first name and the regnal name are usually the same for British monarchs.

    Of course, once you get outside of Europe the schemes go all over the place.

  • Options
    EtchwartsEtchwarts Eyes Up Registered User regular
    DaMoonRulz wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    PiptheFair wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    See, part of me actually wants a tough pope. Or at least one who when accused of saying disparaging remarks about other religions, simply responds, "I'm the fucking Pope". Because that always seemed a bit ridiculous when people act like the man needs to be tolerant of all other religions. He is the leader of his religion (set aside the Catholic/Protestant split for a second) as laid out in the early centuries of the church. His main duty above all else is to follow scripture. And right there in the second book it lays out rules, which first among them says 'I am the lord thy god and you shall have no other gods before me'. So if he wants to stand there and tell some other dude you're wrong and your gods are bullshit, he should be allowed without people shitting their pants and screaming "OMG Pope, how y u say that???!!!".

    Of course this leads to problems when I would also like to see a pope who would be willing to throw out Leviticus and Deuteronomy as antiquated drivel from an intolerant age. But I suppose that would get in the way of a tough Pope with a strict interpretation of the Bible as God's Word.

    Yeah except this is precisely the kind of bullshit that leads to genocide. Oops.

    Except the genocides of the last centuries have been based on political motives, national boundaries, and racial terms.

    But assuming the Pope would be allowed to reclaim the Papal States and then some, raise an army, declare war on another religion w/o any support from the Bible regarding conversion by violence, and absolutely no interference from the international community, then yes, this would lead to genocide.

    Let me put this another way.

    Entrenched antisemitism, spread and supported in no small part by the Catholic church, was a major factor that led to the Holocaust.

    The Pope doesn't have to personally exterminate a people to take a part of responsibility when people listen to what he says and then do awful, awful things. This is why modern Popes are more careful than they used to about what they say (and yet, still not careful enough, see AIDS).

    Modern antisemitism which was a major factor that led to the Holocaust is much different from the antisemitic beliefs that circulated during the Middle Ages into the 16th century. Antisemitism in the late 19th Century and 20th Century was more secular, based around citizenship, economic factors, racial ideology, and cultural differences rather than religion and had little to do with the Catholic church.

    Yes but the church was right there not saying much while all that shit was happening.

    They were basically "oh but they're Jews so who cares right"

    that was basically carte blanche for Europe to not care about what happened to them

    and people should the fuck have cared.

    You mean like the "With Burning Concern" encyclical concerning the condemnation of the Nazi racial policy the church issued in 1937? The same one that was written in German rather than Latin and read throughout every Catholic church on the same Sunday that contained one of the strongest condemnations ever from the church?

    The same church that saved upwards of 600-700,000 Jews?

    The church that continually protested the treatment of the Jews in the 1940s?

    The church that spoke out against the holocaust in 1942?

    The same church that hid a number of Italian Jews within its networks when the Germans invaded Italy?

    I'm not sure what you were exactly expecting them to do? And I think you're giving the church far more power and clout than it actually had. The church had significantly declined in power and influence over the centuries before. That's why antisemitism had become a problem of the state, not the church. Not to mention as a neutral power/party literally in the heart of one of the Axis nations, the church was quite limited in what it could say or do. Heck, Hitler even had a plan at one point in the middle of the war to invade the Vatican and kidnap the Pope and the curia, so there's that.

    There were a bunch of institutions that basically gave Germany carte blanche. Most of them would be called the countries of Europe, the other would be the US. The church did what it could and a great number of Christians within occupied countries did what they could to hide and protect Jews as well.

    So to say the church was implicit is rather unfair and untrue.

    Okay you seem well-researched and to be fair my argument was mostly based on half-recalled assumptions so okay you win.

    The current Pope was totally a Nazi though.

    no

    he was a member of the hitler youth which was all but compulsory

    Semantics.

    (don't get into a thing because I'm being half-facetious)

    I know this may offend some people, but I'm Anti-Semantic

    Damn it!

    I had to reread that 3 times to stop being absolutely disgusted.

  • Options
    jippeejippee Registered User regular
    SimBen wrote: »
    jippee wrote: »
    It is sort of amazing that John, Paul, Dave and George got out of style. Being all biblical and such. No, the Pope has to go all Pius XII and Gregorius on us.

    I really, really want the next Pope to be Ringo I.

    I want the Urbi et orbi to start with a day in the life drumroll and end with a chorus of "You're sixteen, you're beautiful and you're mine."

    Nellie the elephant packed her trunk
    and trundled off to the jungle
    off she rode with a trumpety trump
    trump trump trump



  • Options
    SimBenSimBen Hodor? Hodor Hodor.Registered User regular
    What would you do if I Poped out of tune, would you stand up and excommunicate me?

    sig.gif
  • Options
    jippeejippee Registered User regular
    lend me your ear and I'll improvise right from here and I'll try not to damn you my dear.

    Nellie the elephant packed her trunk
    and trundled off to the jungle
    off she rode with a trumpety trump
    trump trump trump



  • Options
    SimBenSimBen Hodor? Hodor Hodor.Registered User regular
    I'll get by with a little help from my Jesus

    sig.gif
  • Options
    SimBenSimBen Hodor? Hodor Hodor.Registered User regular
    Okay I am 100% ready to root for an underdog Pope.

    Someone make a movie where Chris Rock becomes Pope or something.

    sig.gif
  • Options
    jippeejippee Registered User regular
    face it: you gotta get by with the help of your homies.

    Nellie the elephant packed her trunk
    and trundled off to the jungle
    off she rode with a trumpety trump
    trump trump trump



  • Options
    jippeejippee Registered User regular
    otherwise you can only count on your queers.

    Nellie the elephant packed her trunk
    and trundled off to the jungle
    off she rode with a trumpety trump
    trump trump trump



  • Options
    Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    SimBen wrote: »
    Okay I am 100% ready to root for an underdog Pope.

    Someone make a movie where Chris Rock becomes Pope or something.
    Get him to Auvergne, bribe a Cardinal to ordain (?) him and voila, we have an Anti-Pope.

  • Options
    YaYaYaYa Decent. Registered User regular
    the Vatican's Next Top Pope would be a reality show I would never not watch

  • Options
    ArchsorcererArchsorcerer Registered User regular
    SimBen wrote: »
    Okay I am 100% ready to root for an underdog Pope.

    Someone make a movie where Chris Rock becomes Pope or something.

    Wayans Brother's White Chicks 2 set in Rome.

    XBL - ArchSilversmith

    "We have years of struggle ahead, mostly within ourselves." - Made in USA
  • Options
    SimBenSimBen Hodor? Hodor Hodor.Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Chris Rock thought he had it all

    until one day

    *record scratch*

    "The Conclave has chosen... Chris Rock!"

    *fast zoom in on Chris Rock's face in the crowd at St. Peter's Plaza* "Say whaaaat?"

    "Okay your Holiness, if you will please now sit on the chair."
    "THAT CHAIR'S GOT A HOLE IN IT!"
    "Please sit on the chair."
    "okay but I don't see why *doink sound effect, Chris Rock makes a funny face*"

    *I get knocked down starts playing*

    *a young attractive nun*
    "Okay so you're saying that everything I say is infallible"
    "That's right, Your Holiness"
    "Anything I say"
    "Yes"
    "So if I told you to get naked right now you'd do it"
    *record scratch*
    *shot of a dog hiding his eyes*

    *then I got high starts playing*

    This summer

    you'll see that just because you're the Pope

    *Chris Rock moons the crowd*

    doesn't have to mean

    "Yeah I asked the big guy up there and he said you should totally invite your twin sister in here"

    you're a dope

    WHITE SMOKE, coming this summer

    SimBen on
    sig.gif
  • Options
    SimBenSimBen Hodor? Hodor Hodor.Registered User regular
    Alternatively: substitute Snoop Dogg in that trailer.

    sig.gif
  • Options
    FrankoFranko Sometimes I really wish I had four feet so I could dance with myself to the drumbeat Registered User regular
    YaYa wrote: »
    the Vatican's Next Top Pope would be a reality show I would never not watch

    Sorry Cardinal Ouellet, you have been voted off, your Chimney fire has been extinguished, please say goodbye to your fellow Cardinals
    Cardinal Ouellet "Fuck you, fuck you, you're cool and fuck you"

  • Options
    ArchsorcererArchsorcerer Registered User regular
    SimBen wrote: »
    Alternatively: substitute Snoop Dogg in that trailer.

    "The popemobile is lacking something."
    RIMS!

    XBL - ArchSilversmith

    "We have years of struggle ahead, mostly within ourselves." - Made in USA
  • Options
    AntimatterAntimatter Devo Was Right Gates of SteelRegistered User regular
    SimBen wrote: »
    Alternatively: substitute Snoop Dogg in that trailer.

    Snoop Lion

  • Options
    TheStigTheStig Registered User regular
    Cardinal Ouellet wasn't there to make friends.

    bnet: TheStig#1787 Steam: TheStig
  • Options
    SimBenSimBen Hodor? Hodor Hodor.Registered User regular
    Antimatter wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    Alternatively: substitute Snoop Dogg in that trailer.

    Snoop Lion

    No listen if we're gonna do this it has to be Snoop Dogg, not his rebranding.

    sig.gif
  • Options
    MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Antimatter wrote: »
    SimBen wrote: »
    Alternatively: substitute Snoop Dogg in that trailer.

    Snoop Lion

    He will always and forever be Snoop Dogg in my eyes.

This discussion has been closed.