1 of 2
1
Power
Posted: 24 April 2006 03:36 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2006-04-07

There's a lot of discussion of violence and power on this thread. "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." The trouble with religion is that the "flock" so to speak tends to grant the leadership absolute power. Problems are bound to follow.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2006 10:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25
[quote author=“WallabyHunter1”]There’s a lot of discussion of violence and power on this thread. “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The trouble with religion is that the “flock” so to speak tends to grant the leadership absolute power. Problems are bound to follow.

WallabyHunter1, welcome to the Sam Harris forum, occupied by the brightest bulbs, though in perpetual spiritual darkness, having difficulty receiving illumination.

Excuse me, but what scriptures are the result of your cognition?

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2006 03:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2006-04-07

This information is not scripural in nature. It is based on what I’ve seen on the television and heard in real life. The pope is defined as infallible. Infallible means absolute power. History is full of corrupt popes. Many lay Catholics are under the misconception that their popes throughout history has been men of high morals and elevated piety. Given below are brief biographical selections of quite a number of popes who do not fit this popular idea:

  * Pope Victor I (189-199) [a]
  * Pope Damasus I (366-384)
  * Pope Symmachus (498-514)
  * Pope Vigilius (537-555)
  * Pope Sergius (687-701)
  * Stephen III(II) (752-757)
  * Stephen IV (III) (768-772)
  * Pope Nicholas I (858-867)
  * Pope Stephen VII (VI) (896-897)
  * Sergius III (904 to 911)
  * Pope John X (914-928)
  * Pope John XI (931-935)
  * Pope John XII (955-964)
  * Pope Benedict IX (1032-1044; 1045; 1047-1048)
  * Pope Innocent III (1198-1216)
  * Pope Alexander III (1159-1181)
  * Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241)
  * Innocent IV (1243-1254)
  * Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
  * The Avignon Popes(1305-1378)
  * The Anti-Popes(1378-1414)
  * Pope Callistus III (1455-1458)
  * Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484)
  * Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492)
  * Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503)-the worst of the lot!
  * Pope Julius II (1503-1513)
  * Pope Leo X (1513-1521)
  * Pope Paul III (1534-1549)
  * Pope Julius III (1550-1555)
  * Pope Alexander VIII (1689-1691) & Pope Pius VI (1775-1799)
  * Pope Pius XII (1939-1958)
  * Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)
  * John Paul II (1978-2005)

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/papacy.html

I can almost with 100% certainty posit that there have to be other sites in existence with similar facts. Pat Robertson called for the bombing of the U.S. State Department and the assassination of at least one foreign leader. People listen to words like “infallibility” and tend to put large amounts of faith in people who base their life experiences on 2000 year old books. A slightly more contemporary book, the one by Sam Harris on which this site is founded, posits that without large amounts of faith in the one’s own theory about the metaphysics of death are required to commit a suicide bombing. Charles Manson had a religious tone to his Family or “flock” granted Manson power over their lives and he told them to kill people. Dead people count as a problem.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2006 03:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

the Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra (from the chair) and only in regards to faith and morals. He cannot add anything new only properly define. The corruption of some Popes is well known, but I am surprised to see two of the last three made the list. Malcolm Muggeridge based his conversion to Catholicism on the bad popes. he said any Church that could survive being run by these men has to have the Holy Spirit guiding it. Wallaby Hunter the church recognizes the sinful nature of all men (including her own members) you seem to only recognize sin in religious people. Who’s the hypocrite?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2006 04:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

WallabyHunter1, chuckle…..

Not a single scripture to back up your assertion. Scripture is the basis for our beliefs, nothing else.

Oh, and give the Popes a break, will ya. It’s a tough job overseeing the faith of a billion folks.

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2006 11:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  310
Joined  2006-01-31

These are two of the four-ish religious malignant tumors on these forums.

Champ:
You don’t need scripture to know the horrible things your faith has done. Pull the thread from your sewn eyes.

Frankr:
You don’t need more than common sense to know that the pope isn’t free of fallibility. I don’t know if can be infallible, and then fallible- can you?

/sigh

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2006 12:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

[quote author=“Nyracasso”] I don’t know if can be infallible, and then fallible- can you?

This malignant tumor would prefer that you use English that makes sense. I have said it before Nyracasso, I am not expecting a coherent point from you. I would like you to use the language so I could understand what your incoherent point is.

Do you mean you don’t know if the Pope can be infallible then fallible? Well the answer to that question is yes I do know. The Pope is infallible when he speaks of doctrine and says he is speaking infallibly. For instance, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was declared an infallible teaching of the Church. On the other hand the pope’s ideas about wine making or politics or who is the nicest guy in the world are not infallible teachings.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2006 03:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  310
Joined  2006-01-31

You’re first argument is to point out that I forgot a word in a sentence? You’re a pathetic chump. Grow a pair.

And-
Because the pope declares something infallible, doesn’t make it so, and doesn’t make him so. He’s no more infallible regarding stories in the bible than he is, to use your examples, about wine and politics.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2006 08:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19
[quote author=“Nyracasso”]Because the pope declares something infallible, doesn’t make it so, and doesn’t make him so. He’s no more infallible regarding stories in the bible than he is, to use your examples, about wine and politics.

So you deny the infallibility of the pope, but claim infallibility for yourself. I understand. We’ve all been mistaken you are the infallible one. The pope is not infallible because you say so. Its all clear. I suppose you deny both the Immaculate Conception and original sin.

As to growing a pair, I can only say, you are an but you already made that quite clear. So there.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2006 11:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  467
Joined  2006-04-16

In 1987 Pope John Paul II issued the encylical Redemptoris Mater. In doing so he reaffirmed that the Virgin Mary’s hymen was intact.
This was indeed a relief to millions of catholics because without a virgin birth, no miracle and without a miracle, no church. Some accused Pope John Paul II of having a conflict of interest in making this ruling, however, because he is infallable the argument was ruled baseless.
Rumor has it that Mary’s hymen is being used as a drum skin somewhere in the Congo. This cannot be confirmed.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2006 07:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  310
Joined  2006-01-31
[quote author=“frankr”][quote author=“Nyracasso”]Because the pope declares something infallible, doesn’t make it so, and doesn’t make him so. He’s no more infallible regarding stories in the bible than he is, to use your examples, about wine and politics.

So you deny the infallibility of the pope, but claim infallibility for yourself. I understand. We’ve all been mistaken you are the infallible one. The pope is not infallible because you say so. Its all clear. I suppose you deny both the Immaculate Conception and original sin.

As to growing a pair, I can only say, you are an but you already made that quite clear. So there.

You obviously misunderstood something. I assumed that would happen.

Yes, I completely denied the infallibility of the pope, but I not once said that I, myself, was infallible. It’s almost like you think the idea of infallibility has to be instilled in someone. By stating that the person you think is perfect because he’s sitting some place, somewhere, and talking is pointing the fact that no one has been or ever will be free of mistakes. It doesn’t happen. Of course I deny immaculate conception and original sin. It’s nothing but mytheology.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2006 02:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

I say that you are infallible because you make universal statements that you cannot prove but which you claim to know as truth. “The Pope cannot be infallible.” If there is empirical evidence for its truth then please share it.

So by denying both the Immaculate Conception and original sin you are saying that everyone is born free of the effects of original sin except for Mary. I am sure this makes sense to you.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2006 03:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2006-04-07

Hey frankr,
If I fail to recognize sin in myself it is only because I fail to recognize the concept of sin. That’s a religious concept. You cannot apply it to me. Am I perfect? No. Do I always do the exact right thing in every situation? No. Is this a bad thing? No. To error is to be human and I understand that. In fact, that even explains why so many people have hopped on the bandwagon of religion in the first place.

As for hypocrisy, honestly, can religion really be used as an argument agaisnt it? Religion is one of the most self-contradictory institutions in the world!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2006 03:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2006-04-07

Champ,
The trouble with killings for the church may originate here…

“But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.”  -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2006 03:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03

Hey frankr, rebut this…..................

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/infallible.html

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2006 04:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

[quote author=“WalabyHunter1”] If I fail to recognize sin in myself it is only because I fail to recognize the concept of sin. That’s a religious concept. You cannot apply it to me. Am I perfect? No. Do I always do the exact right thing in every situation? No. Is this a bad thing? No. To error is to be human and I understand that

If it is not a bad thing when you don’t do the exact right thing then please use that standard in judging other. The Catholic Church is not hypocritcal because at times in history the have not done the exact right thing nor is Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Robespierre. They are only misunderstood individuals who didn’t do the exact right thing. They are only human and to error(sic) is human.

C.A.
I will not rebut this. Others have done it for me.

 

Scroll down to Papal infallibility. It is clearly defined and the objections of your friend are clearly refuted.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed