Pope dead (n/t)

[partygirluk]

.

[Dynasty]

www.foxnews.com (http://www.foxnews.com) has a banner saying the Vatican itself has reported the death.

He had a huge impact on overturning communist governments in Eastern Europe.

[partygirluk]

I think he was a fantastic guy, but his policy on condoms has led to many unneccesary deaths. I'm glad he has dies, as it puts an end to what must have been years of painful living.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
but his policy on condoms has led to many unneccesary deaths.

[/ QUOTE ]

So he gets the blame when people listen to only *part* of what his policy was? If they listened to the whole policy, both no condoms and abstinence outside of marriage, many of the issues you refer to wouldn't exist.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but his policy on condoms has led to many unneccesary deaths.

[/ QUOTE ]

So he gets the blame when people listen to only *part* of what his policy was? If they listened to the whole policy, both no condoms and abstinence outside of marriage, many of the issues you refer to wouldn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, abstinence is the best way to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancy. But I am talking about practice, not theory.

[Sponger15SB]

I was just watching video of his little pope mobile traveling through LA during his visit, and I'm reminded of a stand up comdians joke...

I can't believe the pope mobile, oh he gets shot and dies and goes to heaven for all eternity, wouldn't that be terrible.

[Cubswin]

But I am talking about practice, not theory.

In practice, not using condoms prolly creates as many lifes as it kills. Your timing of even bringing this up is very inappropriate.

[Broken Glass Can]

VATICAN CITY - Pope John Paul II, the Polish pontiff who led the Roman Catholic Church for more than a quarter century and became history's most-traveled pope, has died at 84, the Vatican announced in an e-mail Saturday.

"The Holy Father died this evening at 9:37 p.m. (2:37 p.m. EST) in his private apartment. All the procedures outlined in the apostolic Constitution `Universi Dominici Gregis' that was written by John Paul II on Feb. 22, 1996, have been put in motion."

A service of the Associated Press(AP)

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
But I am talking about practice, not theory.

In practice, not using condoms prolly creates as many lifes as it kills. Your timing of even bringing this up is very inappropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any lifes created by condoms are likely to be unwanted ones, which is no good thing. I think the timing is very appropriate, because his death is an apt time to reflect on his life.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but his policy on condoms has led to many unneccesary deaths.

[/ QUOTE ]

So he gets the blame when people listen to only *part* of what his policy was? If they listened to the whole policy, both no condoms and abstinence outside of marriage, many of the issues you refer to wouldn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, abstinence is the best way to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancy. But I am talking about practice, not theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what "(in) practice, not theory" means. You blame him by suggesting that people 100% listen to his condom policy while ignoring that all those you refer too somehow 100% ignored his abstinence until marriage policy.

The blame goes 0% to the Pope and his teachings and 100% to those who incompletely follow them.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
The blame goes 0% to the Pope and his teachings and 100% to those who incompletely follow them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a nice website for every person that's too stupid to use a condom with strangers:

http://www.darwinawards.com/

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]

I have a nice website for every person that's too stupid to use a condom with strangers:

http://www.darwinawards.com/

[/ QUOTE ]

What portion of the site were you referring to? I don't get it... /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he was a fantastic guy, but his policy on condoms has led to many unneccesary deaths.

[/ QUOTE ]


The policy creates no unneccesary deaths. The people who want to kill, create the deaths. Then again, just being born leads to death sooner or later, the only way to prevent death is to extinguish the species.

Btw, why are you starting political sub-threads in OOT?

[theBruiser500]

clarkmeister how can you say that? i can only restate what that person you started arguing with is saying. abstinence would work but no one is going to practice abstinence. being against condoms and for abstinence is living in dream world and is stupid

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I have a nice website for every person that's too stupid to use a condom with strangers:

http://www.darwinawards.com/

[/ QUOTE ]

What portion of the site were you referring to? I don't get it... /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

In the top right corner you will see this:

The Darwin Awards salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who accidentally kill themselves in really stupid ways. Of necessity, this honor is generally bestowed posthumously.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
The Darwin Awards salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who accidentally kill themselves in really stupid ways. Of necessity, this honor is generally bestowed posthumously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wanting to work with infectious diseases may qualify someone for a Darwin Award. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2062002&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
clarkmeister how can you say that? i can only restate what that person you started arguing with is saying. abstinence would work but no one is going to practice abstinence. being against condoms and for abstinence is living in dream world and is stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you get how this whole "obedience" and "religion" thing works. It's impossible to logically attack the Pope on the issue because if people did what he told them to, they wouldn't have the problems they do.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
clarkmeister how can you say that? i can only restate what that person you started arguing with is saying. abstinence would work but no one is going to practice abstinence. being against condoms and for abstinence is living in dream world and is stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether you agree with the practicality of abstinence teaching or not is irrelevant. The point is that the Pope/GWB/whoever is not responsible for stupid semi-Christians who contract STDs because they didn't use a condom. You're already being disobedient by having sex, you may as well break the no-condoms rule to protect yourself (and anyone with an IQ of 7 knows this).

You can say their teachings are impractical, but they certainly aren't to blame for STD contraction, because IF people listened, they'd be fine. Since they don't listen to the abstinence part, I think they could go ahead and use a condom even if the Church is against it, because, well, you're already breaking the rules, might as well break one more to protect yourself. But people are stupid, and prefer to blame someone else for said stupidity.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
clarkmeister how can you say that? i can only restate what that person you started arguing with is saying. abstinence would work but no one is going to practice abstinence. being against condoms and for abstinence is living in dream world and is stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether you agree with the practicality of abstinence teaching or not is irrelevant. The point is that the Pope/GWB/whoever is not responsible for stupid semi-Christians who contract STDs because they didn't use a condom. You're already being disobedient by having sex, you may as well break the no-condoms rule to protect yourself (and anyone with an IQ of 7 knows this).

You can say their teachings are impractical, but they certainly aren't to blame for STD contraction, because IF people listened, they'd be fine. Since they don't listen to the abstinence part, I think they could go ahead and use a condom even if the Church is against it, because, well, you're already breaking the rules, might as well break one more to protect yourself. But people are stupid, and prefer to blame someone else for said stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

[pc in NM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but his policy on condoms has led to many unneccesary deaths.

[/ QUOTE ]

So he gets the blame when people listen to only *part* of what his policy was? If they listened to the whole policy, both no condoms and abstinence outside of marriage, many of the issues you refer to wouldn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, abstinence is the best way to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancy. But I am talking about practice, not theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what "(in) practice, not theory" means. You blame him by suggesting that people 100% listen to his condom policy while ignoring that all those you refer too somehow 100% ignored his abstinence until marriage policy.

The blame goes 0% to the Pope and his teachings and 100% to those who incompletely follow them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue can be addressed on two levels....

Certainly, anyone who consistently "practices" abstinence will not have pregnencies or get STD's - that's obvious....

However, on the level of an educational, or prevention, strategy, the evidence reveals that "abstinence-only" strategies are much less effective than "abstinence-based" strategies (These reccomend and support abstinence, but provide accurate information about other methods for prevention).

"Abstinence-only" strategies also typically employ deliberately distorted data about optional choices and methods, but that is a different concern. But, even when factually accurate they have not yielded the same outcomes that have "abstinence-based" programs....

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but his policy on condoms has led to many unneccesary deaths.

[/ QUOTE ]

So he gets the blame when people listen to only *part* of what his policy was? If they listened to the whole policy, both no condoms and abstinence outside of marriage, many of the issues you refer to wouldn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, abstinence is the best way to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancy. But I am talking about practice, not theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what "(in) practice, not theory" means. You blame him by suggesting that people 100% listen to his condom policy while ignoring that all those you refer too somehow 100% ignored his abstinence until marriage policy.

The blame goes 0% to the Pope and his teachings and 100% to those who incompletely follow them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue can be addressed on two levels....

Certainly, anyone who consistently "practices" abstinence will not have pregnencies or get STD's - that's obvious....

However, on the level of an educational, or prevention, strategy, the evidence reveals that "abstinence-only" strategies are much less effective than "abstinence-based" strategies (These reccomend and support abstinence, but provide accurate information about other methods for prevention).

"Abstinence-only" strategies also typically employ deliberately distorted data about optional choices and methods, but that is a different concern. But, even when factually accurate they have not yielded the same outcomes that have "abstinence-based" programs....

[/ QUOTE ]

The Church's ultimate goal is not education or prevention. It is to teach a moral standard. That's the thing that people don't seem to get.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but his policy on condoms has led to many unneccesary deaths.

[/ QUOTE ]

So he gets the blame when people listen to only *part* of what his policy was? If they listened to the whole policy, both no condoms and abstinence outside of marriage, many of the issues you refer to wouldn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, abstinence is the best way to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancy. But I am talking about practice, not theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what "(in) practice, not theory" means. You blame him by suggesting that people 100% listen to his condom policy while ignoring that all those you refer too somehow 100% ignored his abstinence until marriage policy.

The blame goes 0% to the Pope and his teachings and 100% to those who incompletely follow them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue can be addressed on two levels....

Certainly, anyone who consistently "practices" abstinence will not have pregnencies or get STD's - that's obvious....

However, on the level of an educational, or prevention, strategy, the evidence reveals that "abstinence-only" strategies are much less effective than "abstinence-based" strategies (These reccomend and support abstinence, but provide accurate information about other methods for prevention).

"Abstinence-only" strategies also typically employ deliberately distorted data about optional choices and methods, but that is a different concern. But, even when factually accurate they have not yielded the same outcomes that have "abstinence-based" programs....

[/ QUOTE ]

The Church's ultimate goal is not education or prevention. It is to teach a moral standard. That's the thing that people don't seem to get.

[/ QUOTE ]

And given that the moral standard, if followed, is perfectly healthy and safe, I don't see how you can blame them for the consequences of not following it.

Now it they told you that it was saintly to have sex with as many people as possible and didn't couple that with some free condoms, then I'd say you could blame them for STDs.

[theBruiser500]

yeah okay clarkmeister, i understnad your point and i understood it when i first responded to you. i stand by what i said though.

[jstnrgrs]

What I don't understand is why are there people are unwilling/unable to adhere to the Pope's teachings on abstence, yet these same people feel compeled to follow the ban on condoms. If you don't have a problem with pre-marital sex, then you should not have a problem with condoms (at least not a problem comming from the Pope), since you are already ignoring the Churche's teachings. Clark is 100%right.

[MelK]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v157/rmyoungman/pope.jpg

[ilya]

Requiescat in pacem.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he was a fantastic guy, but his policy on condoms has led to many unneccesary deaths. I'm glad he has dies, as it puts an end to what must have been years of painful living.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do we all realize this wasn't his policy? It was church policy. And church policy on birth control has been around a tad longer than the recently deceased poipe.

[theBruiser500]

why do christians have to be against condoms in the first place though, it is just stupid

[Tron]

I have a question... I'm a Catholic, and, like many here, I've only had one Pope throughout my entire life... So what am I supposed to do now? What are the traditions, etc. during such times? Do I fast, abstain? I'd appreciate it if any of you could help me out. Otherwise, I suppose I'll find out at mass tomorrow.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question... I'm a Catholic, and, like many here, I've only had one Pope throughout my entire life... So what am I supposed to do now? What are the traditions, etc. during such times? Do I fast, abstain? I'd appreciate it if any of you could help me out. Otherwise, I suppose I'll find out at mass tomorrow.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're Irish, have a wake.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
why do christians have to be against condoms in the first place though, it is just stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

christians aren't. the catholic church is. the church wants as many good little catholics made as possible.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
why do christians have to be against condoms in the first place though, it is just stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not familiar with the Catholic position, but I know many are not against condoms, they're against pre-marital sex. And the argument goes that by teaching preventative contraception measures instead of abstinence, schools etc are implicitly condoning pre-marital sex. Blah blah, blah blah blah.

So your question really should be "Why is the church against pre-marital sex?"

[jstnrgrs]

First let me say that I dissagree with the Catholic position against condoms, and point out that it is not shared by all Christian churches.

I believe their reason is that they believe that sex should be connected to having children, and that any sex in which pregnancy in artificially prevented is sinful.

It should be pointed out that the Catholics do not teach that pre-marital sex is oaky as long as no condom is used. Based on some comments in this thread, I think that is what some would have you believe.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
clarkmeister how can you say that? i can only restate what that person you started arguing with is saying. abstinence would work but no one is going to practice abstinence. being against condoms and for abstinence is living in dream world and is stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether you agree with the practicality of abstinence teaching or not is irrelevant. The point is that the Pope/GWB/whoever is not responsible for stupid semi-Christians who contract STDs because they didn't use a condom. You're already being disobedient by having sex, you may as well break the no-condoms rule to protect yourself (and anyone with an IQ of 7 knows this).

You can say their teachings are impractical, but they certainly aren't to blame for STD contraction, because IF people listened, they'd be fine. Since they don't listen to the abstinence part, I think they could go ahead and use a condom even if the Church is against it, because, well, you're already breaking the rules, might as well break one more to protect yourself. But people are stupid, and prefer to blame someone else for said stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because if anybody really believes that a campaign of abstinence has any chance of success on a large scale they are living in a land of make-believe. He can promote abstinence all he wants, I understand that is the Church's teachings and "moral". But that does not mean he needed to take such a proactively anti-condom stance, a stance which has led to many many deaths.

[gumpzilla]

Catholics are anti-birth control, not just condoms, I believe. It's not an issue of sending mixed messages; sex is about making babies, etc. Protestants might still weigh in against pre-marital sex, but they aren't anti birth-control. And I would add that looking for logical reasons why various religions are currently doing the things that they are doing is usually going to be kind of silly.

[jstnrgrs]

But if people are going to ignore the teaching on abstionence, then I would think they would have no problem ignoring the teachings on condoms.

If I were to say that poker, when played well, can be a good way to make a living, would you blame me if people go play poker poorly and loose money?

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
So your question really should be "Why is the church against pre-marital sex?"

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0206.html

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So your question really should be "Why is the church against pre-marital sex?"

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0206.html

[/ QUOTE ]

While not Catholic, I'm Methodist, and fairly familiar with the theology involved.

I just find it odd that people are focusing on the condom issue here when the point really revolves around the pre-marital sex stance more than anything. And when you hit that wall, most of the people here are going to say "that's stupid, no one's going to wait for marriage" and give up.

Just trying to accelerate the discussion, I guess.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
clarkmeister how can you say that? i can only restate what that person you started arguing with is saying. abstinence would work but no one is going to practice abstinence. being against condoms and for abstinence is living in dream world and is stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether you agree with the practicality of abstinence teaching or not is irrelevant. The point is that the Pope/GWB/whoever is not responsible for stupid semi-Christians who contract STDs because they didn't use a condom. You're already being disobedient by having sex, you may as well break the no-condoms rule to protect yourself (and anyone with an IQ of 7 knows this).

You can say their teachings are impractical, but they certainly aren't to blame for STD contraction, because IF people listened, they'd be fine. Since they don't listen to the abstinence part, I think they could go ahead and use a condom even if the Church is against it, because, well, you're already breaking the rules, might as well break one more to protect yourself. But people are stupid, and prefer to blame someone else for said stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because if anybody really believes that a campaign of abstinence has any chance of success on a large scale they are living in a land of make-believe. He can promote abstinence all he wants, I understand that is the Church's teachings and "moral". But that does not mean he needed to take such a proactively anti-condom stance, a stance which has led to many many deaths.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only in a world where we don't hold people accountable for their own actions. Their deaths are *their* fault. Your thought that they actively listen to one part of the teaching while disobeying the other is inconsistent. You basically just sound angry that the Church doesn't agree with you, but there is nothing wrong with the actual teaching and it certainly hasn't caused deaths related to disease.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]

I just find it odd that people are focusing on the condom issue here when the point really revolves around the pre-marital sex stance more than anything. And when you hit that wall, most of the people here are going to say "that's stupid, no one's going to wait for marriage" and give up.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good point.

[beta1607]

Incredibly tasteless and disrespectful, and I am not Catholic.

[partygirluk]

If you read the bible it suggests stoning gays and adulterers and taking an eye for an eye etc. Does the Church currently advocate this? No. Why? Because (thankfully) they have accepted that times change and that some of the prior teachings of the Church are incompatible with modern society. Failure to take a more realistic attitude towards sex is unacceptable.

[jstnrgrs]

I'm not Catholic either, but I don't see the problem with this one.

If you search through the posts of the past week or so, you can find some that are truly offensive.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
If you read the bible it suggests stoning gays and adulterers and taking an eye for an eye etc. Does the Church currently advocate this? No. Why? Because (thankfully) they have accepted that times change and that some of the prior teachings of the Church are incompatible with modern society. Failure to take a more realistic attitude towards sex is unacceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you equating abstinence with stoning gay people?

I'm not trying to be a prick, I'm really not, it's just that I've heard this argument from a lot of people before and I never fail to find it a bit ludicrous, and primarily born out of our oversexed culture more than anything else.

[jstnrgrs]

So your problem is with their teachings on pre-marital sex. This doesn't mean that they are reaponsible for those who die from STDs.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
So your problem is with their teachings on pre-marital sex. This doesn't mean that they are reaponsible for those who die from STDs.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they taught differently, there would be less deaths from Aids. They know this, but stick with their doctrine. They are responsible.

[jstnrgrs]

If people followed their teachings, there would be fewer deaths from AIDS. What makes you think that if they taught differently, poeple would follow those different teachings any better?

Also, they can't be expected to start teaching something they believe is wrong.

[partygirluk]

Are you really really trying to claim that if they taught abstinence but did not proactively condemn condoms there would not be fewer deaths from Aids?

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
If you read the bible it suggests stoning gays and adulterers and taking an eye for an eye etc. Does the Church currently advocate this? No. Why? Because (thankfully) they have accepted that times change and that some of the prior teachings of the Church are incompatible with modern society. Failure to take a more realistic attitude towards sex is unacceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The New Testament supercedes the Old Testament so your example is wrong. A better one would be that mass is now said in languages other than Latin. But that also is consistent with Catholic Doctrine. Just do some research - it's all out there plainly spelled out. Your inconsistent arguments aren't worth my time to explain it all to you.

2. You just sound like a whiner now. The Church attitude toward sex is "unacceptible"?? LOL. Those who don't like it can not be Catholic. But to blame the Church for the behavior that people take is just as ridiculous as it gets. Do you also think the Church should promote illegal drug use since "everyone" does that as well?

partygirluk: "C'mon God, everyone else is doing it." /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

You aren't Catholic so you don't need to agree. But it's silly to assign blame to the Church because some in it *disobey* Church teachings.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you also think the Church should promote illegal drug use since "everyone" does that as well?

partygirluk: "C'mon God, everyone else is doing it." /images/graemlins/smirk.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the Church should advise against drugs use, because drugs kill. So can not using a condom.

[jstnrgrs]

I think that the number of people who have unprotected extra-marital sex due to the Church's teachings is very small. People who do this are already ignoring what the church teaches, and will likely continue this regardless of the teachings of the Church.

Those few who do have unprotected extra-marital sex due to the Churches theaching on condoms have only themselves to blame (if the get AIDS) since they decided to ignore one thing that the Church teaches, but follow another.

I think that if the CHurch were to change its teachings in a way that you would like, the spread of AIDS would increase due to the increased number of people having sex (even in the case of protected sex, the condoms can fail). Not to mention that the Church would be untrue to its own bleiefs, which I think is about the worst thing it could do.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the Church should advise against drugs use, because drugs kill. So can not using a condom.

[/ QUOTE ]

A) Marajuana doesn't kill, and is much safer than alcohol or cigarettes. At best, this is merely an arguable point. There are obviously recreational drugs that exist or will be created in the next decade that pose no health risk when used responsibily.

B) Not using a condom would be perfectly safe if you waiting until marriage (assuming your spouse did the same).

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you really really trying to claim that if they taught abstinence but did not proactively condemn condoms there would not be fewer deaths from Aids?

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been addressed ad nauseum in this thread. I'd link this thread as reference to itself but instead I'll just request you re-read posts by myself and madtown.

[jstnrgrs]

Saying that not using a condom can kill is like saying that not wearing a bullet-proof vest can kill. Its rediculous.

[partygirluk]

Smoking a spliff does kill. It contains larges amount of nicotine.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you also think the Church should promote illegal drug use since "everyone" does that as well?

partygirluk: "C'mon God, everyone else is doing it." /images/graemlins/smirk.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the Church should advise against drugs use, because drugs kill. So can not using a condom.

[/ QUOTE ]

So can premarital sex, even WITH a condom. So you are against that too, right?

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
Saying that not using a condom can kill is like saying that not wearing a bullet-proof vest can kill. Its rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? If an HIV+ man has unprotected sex with a "clean" girl then there is a very good chance that she will get a fatal disease, and if she falls pregnant that another life will too. In everyday life, for most people, wearing a bullet proof vest will be highly unnecessary. That is a totally idiotic comparison.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you also think the Church should promote illegal drug use since "everyone" does that as well?

partygirluk: "C'mon God, everyone else is doing it." /images/graemlins/smirk.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the Church should advise against drugs use, because drugs kill. So can not using a condom.

[/ QUOTE ]

So can premarital sex, even WITH a condom. So you are against that too, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

So can postmarital sex...... however the chances of contracting HIV when wearing a condom are much much much lower than when not. And I have no problem with the Church speaking out against extra-marital sex. I think it is a pie in the sky idea, but I don't mind them preaching it.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Saying that not using a condom can kill is like saying that not wearing a bullet-proof vest can kill. Its rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? If an HIV+ man has unprotected sex with a "clean" girl then there is a very good chance that she will get a fatal disease, and if she falls pregnant that another life will too. In everyday life, for most people, wearing a bullet proof vest will be highly unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that if everyone followed the church's teachings on sex, a condom would be as uneccesary as a bullet proof vest.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Saying that not using a condom can kill is like saying that not wearing a bullet-proof vest can kill. Its rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? If an HIV+ man has unprotected sex with a "clean" girl then there is a very good chance that she will get a fatal disease, and if she falls pregnant that another life will too. In everyday life, for most people, wearing a bullet proof vest will be highly unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that if everyone followed the church's teachings on sex, a condom would be as uneccesary as a bullet proof vest.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is they don't.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Saying that not using a condom can kill is like saying that not wearing a bullet-proof vest can kill. Its rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? If an HIV+ man has unprotected sex with a "clean" girl then there is a very good chance that she will get a fatal disease, and if she falls pregnant that another life will too. In everyday life, for most people, wearing a bullet proof vest will be highly unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that if everyone followed the church's teachings on sex, a condom would be as uneccesary as a bullet proof vest.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is they don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that that's not the Church's fault.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Saying that not using a condom can kill is like saying that not wearing a bullet-proof vest can kill. Its rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? If an HIV+ man has unprotected sex with a "clean" girl then there is a very good chance that she will get a fatal disease, and if she falls pregnant that another life will too. In everyday life, for most people, wearing a bullet proof vest will be highly unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that if everyone followed the church's teachings on sex, a condom would be as uneccesary as a bullet proof vest.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is they don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's the Church's fault. We got it. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[BottlesOf]

I was raised Catholic, and during my life there has only been one pope. I don't plan on doing anything differently.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is a pie in the sky idea,

[/ QUOTE ]

Your not the only one who thinks this, but people say things like this as though the teachings on extra-marital sex are some new idea that they are just now trying to impliment. The church has taught that sex belongs ONLY in marrage for 2000 years, and they weren't the first to teach that.

[partygirluk]

OK. So you are trying to claim that the fact that soem Catholics with HIV have unprotected sex is nothing to with the Church. Wow! Maybe I am dreaming. In the rare case that I am not, then you must have come to this view from one of two lines of reasoning:

i) The Church can not affect the behaviour of anyone. In which case who cares that the Pope has died? In which case all the praise that I heaped on the Pope for helping inter-racial relations was completely misplaced.

ii) The Church can take credit for influencing people to cast aside decades old, ingrained bigotry but has absolutely no behavioural control whatsoever when it comes to matters sexual. Just think how ridiculous this is.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I was raised Catholic, and during my life there has only been one pope. I don't plan on doing anything differently.

[/ QUOTE ]me neither, but its a sad day for all of us though. Maybe I will pour a little out for him.

[mmbt0ne]

For Easy E, Tupac, Biggie, and JP2

[Clarkmeister]

My response. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2062052&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=2&vc=1)

[jstnrgrs]

So you are saying that the Church encourages unprotected sex. This is simply not true.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
So you are saying that the Church encourages unprotected sex. This is simply not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you claim this is not true?

[ThaSaltCracka]

JP2 was a far better man though. I wonder who will be elected Pope next.

[Talk2BigSteve]

OK a serious post from me. Go Figure?

There is a time of mourning, I believe it is 9 days. As for the Pope, I know I have cracked alot of jokes about him, but he is by far the most respected and most recognizable figure of the 20th century. There are 2 reasons for the time of mourning. The first is obvious, to pay respect to the Pope. The second, is to allow time for the college of Cardinals to arrive at the Vatican.

There is alot of historical traditions that have to take place now.

The first one, is the reason that it was not IMMEDIATELY Announce that the Pope was dead.

When the Pope dies as confirmed by the doctor, the Cardinal in charge must enter the room, He will call the name of the Pope 3 times, not John Paul II but Carol Josef, If the Pope does not respond, he removes the Pope's ring and takes the Official Seal with him. Then the Cardinal will order the guards to seal off the chamber and he will go to the Cardinal's Chambers and will take a hammer and smash the ring and the seal,and Announce the Pope has died, to all the Cardinals there. Then and only then will it be announced to the public.

I hope that helps, and God Bless You in your time of Mourning.

Big Steve /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[jstnrgrs]

The Church discourages all pre-marital sex. This is not an encouragement of unprotected sex.

[lorinda]

This is not an encouragement of unprotected sex.

How else would they create generations of morons believing in something so utterly ridiculous?

Lori

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
JP2 was a far better man though.

[/ QUOTE ]

FAR Better

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
I wonder who will be elected Pope next.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea. The only things I hear people saying are randomly naming the important Cardinals. I expect him to be an Italian, since JP2 was the first in 450 years not to be. Whoever he is will have an amazingly tough act to follow.

[jstnrgrs]

I wonder if there are cultural difference here. It sounds like you Brits all believe that the Pope was in favor of everyone [censored] as many people as possible just to see to it that AIDS would spread as much as possible.

One more Time:
If everyone followed the Churches teachings, there would be no AIDS.

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]
he is by far the most respected and most recognizable figure of the 20th century

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bold statement, and I'm not sure I agree.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
OK. So you are trying to claim that the fact that soem Catholics with HIV have unprotected sex is nothing to with the Church.

[/ QUOTE ]

A Catholic who followed the Church's teachings on sex wouldn't have HIV, unless they got it through an exchange of blood somewhere. I'd be interested to see hard numbers, but I'd imagine that this represents a very small percentage of new cases of HIV.

[ QUOTE ]
In the rare case that I am not, then you must have come to this view from one of two lines of reasoning:

i) blah blah

ii) blah blah

[/ QUOTE ]

You're being simplistic. The Church's influence is not uniform affecting all issues and all people the same way. It is entirely reasonable to say the Pope influenced many people, making much progress in race relations. He didn't influence ALL Catholics though -- some are surely still racist to varying degrees. Same goes for looking at each issue. He's been immensely successful in some issues and not as much in others (hell, most of the recent articles have hammered on his affect on communist but relative failure to affect capitalism).

For example, I know plenty of 18-22 year old Catholics who don't attend mass or confession regularly, haven't been a virgin for years, but regularly do the whole "no-meat-on-Fridays" thing for Lent(?). People pick and choose what issues they're going to listen to the Church about. The fact is that they don't really listen any more regarding sex. That's NOT THE CHURCH'S FAULT. And it doesn't denigrate the Church's influence on other areas.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I don't think he will be Italian. The Church had a lot of success with JP2 as Pope, and I would think part of that had to do with him not being Italian. It made the Church look more diverse which its needs to be. I just hope he is young and energetic. I need a reason to get my ass to Church and all of the slow boring [censored] at mass makes me not want to go.

Go Catholics!!

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if there are cultural difference here. It sounds like you Brits all believe that the Pope was in favor of everyone [censored] as many people as possible just to see to it that AIDS would spread as much as possible.


[/ QUOTE ]
They are all protestants man, silly protestants

[Talk2BigSteve]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he is by far the most respected and most recognizable figure of the 20th century

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bold statement, and I'm not sure I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well maybe not the most respected but certainly the most recognizable. My vote for Time's "Man of the Year" Cover

Big Steve /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not an encouragement of unprotected sex.

How else would they create generations of morons believing in something so utterly ridiculous?

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

This is damn near trolling.

[Emmitt2222]

For all of the smart people in this forum with high IQ's there is a crap load of misinformation on the Catholic Church. There is a book called the Catechism of the Catholic Church and although it can be a little tricky to handle, it has all the answers you need in it.

The Catholic Church is against premarital sex and against contraception. The reasons behind rejecting contraception is not related to premarital sex. Even contraception in marriage is wrong. The reason is that sex is created as the ultimate act of love in which two people share of themselves so completely that they wish to bring about another person through the other. Intercourse is both essentially unitive and procreative. The act must always be OPEN to procreation, which contraception does not allow. The Church does allow something called Natural Family PLanning NFP, where you can have sex during certain times of the month according to the woman's cycle which 99% of the time does not end in getting pregnant, as effective as a condom. The reason that this is allowed is because it is always open to life and the couple is not necessarily ready for a child but they are saying with their bodies that if a child does come about they will be accepting of it. When using contraception, you are saying with your body that you want to avoid a child at all cost and just derive pleasure which is a selfish act and not what sex is meant for. This leads to what the Church calls the "contraceptive mentality" where people are much more ready to have an abortion because the condom broke and they didn't mean for it to happen. Basically life gets devalued when you try to avoid it in an essentially life-giving act. That's what this is all about, being open to life, pro-life. Partygurl is right that many people will fail even though these teachings are given out because we are a fallen people, but it is still in our free will to follow them and it is always our choice so we should keep striving for it and not give up just we fall constantly.

Hope that makes enough sense on Church teaching. Thanks to Clarkmeister for being coherent amidst the confusion.

[ThaSaltCracka]

good post.

[Emmitt2222]

1994 he was but I could see him getting it again, if thats allowed

[partygirluk]

Nice, balanced post.

[ThaSaltCracka]

does anyone know if there is a chance that JP2 will be sainted? I only ask because I thought I had heard in the past that there were one or two miracles attributed to him. Anyone know if this is true or I am completely wrong?

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
The reasons behind rejecting contraception is not related to premarital sex. Even contraception in marriage is wrong. Intercourse is both essentially unitive and procreative. The act must always be OPEN to procreation, which contraception does not allow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this was the Church's position but wasn't sure until this debate sparked up.

However, the Church's position on pre-marital sex does play heavily into the discussion here. Since partygirl is saying that the Church is responsible for the spread of STDs due to this position, the counter argument is that if everyone adhered to the no pre-marital sex stance, then the no contraception stance wouldn't be a concern, STD-wise (exception being if you contracted HIV via non-sexual means, blood, needles, etc).

So even though the two stances aren't linked together in the Church, they are both integral to the discussion.

[lorinda]

I only ask because I thought I had heard in the past that there were one or two miracles attributed to him.

Do you know how retarded this sounds?

You are not six years old any more.

Lori

[mmbt0ne]

MSNBC has a decent breakdown here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4136355/

It doesn't give a ton of information, but I'll probably google some people later. Just from what I've read, I think I'd go with one of these Cardinals:

Cardinal Godfried Danneels
Nationality: Belgian
Job: Archbishop of Brussels
DOB: June 4, 1933
Birthplace: Kanegem, Belgium
Outlook: Liberal
Of note: Intellectual, blunt, well-liked, multilingual, at the forefront of European cardinals

Cardinal Cristoph Schonborn
Nationality: Austrian
Job: Archbishop of Vienna
DOB: Jan. 22, 1945
Birthplace: Skalsko (Litomerice), Austria
Outlook: Liberal
Of note: Young, considered charming, multilingual, reminds people of a young John Paul II

Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi
Nationality: Italian
Job: Archbishop of Genoa
DOB: March 21, 1934
Birthplace: Renate (Milan), Italy
Outlook: Conservative
Of note: Smart, pastoral, extremely capable, has foreign experience, considered a well-rounded candidate

I've got some reading to do on them before I give a seal of approval, but they come with the added bonus that they both look like Popes. Unfortunately many of the candidates are very old, like 70+, which I think is a negative. I just think it would be better to have a more stable leadership in such an important position. Of course, if the best candidate is older than everyone else, who am I to say that he shouldn't hold the position.

[lorinda]

Tettamanzi

Drifted from 6-4 to 2-1 on betfair in the last 20 minutes, but is still favorite.

Lori

[Emmitt2222]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reasons behind rejecting contraception is not related to premarital sex. Even contraception in marriage is wrong. Intercourse is both essentially unitive and procreative. The act must always be OPEN to procreation, which contraception does not allow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this was the Church's position but wasn't sure until this debate sparked up.

However, the Church's position on pre-marital sex does play heavily into the discussion here. Since partygirl is saying that the Church is responsible for the spread of STDs due to this position, the counter argument is that if everyone adhered to the no pre-marital sex stance, then the no contraception stance wouldn't be a concern, STD-wise (exception being if you contracted HIV via non-sexual means, blood, needles, etc).

So even though the two stances aren't linked together in the Church, they are both integral to the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. I didn't want to make it sound like the two are completely unrelated, I just thought you were linking them a little too much so I leaned the other way. They are definitly connected in practicallity because premarital sex and contraception both stem from the same problem of turning sex into a merely pleasurable act instead of a procreative one. If the mentality was changed to being open to life within Church teaching then people would not do either and there would be no crazy spreading of STD's.

[mmbt0ne]

It's shame you've been around too long to get banned.

[Talk2BigSteve]

I am still going with Giovanni Battista

Big Steve /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I only ask because I thought I had heard in the past that there were one or two miracles attributed to him.

Do you know how retarded this sounds?

You are not six years old any more.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]


FUC K OFF, SERIOUSLY GO SOMEWHERE AND FUC KING DIE.

[lorinda]

Godfried Danneels

29-1

Schonborn

69-1 (yes, really)

Given that this is one of the few sensible posts in the thread, I may just have a go on those two.

Lori

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
I only ask because I thought I had heard in the past that there were one or two miracles attributed to him.

Do you know how retarded this sounds?

You are not six years old any more.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Calm down. One of the most notable aspects of JP2s reign was that he sainted more people than all previous popes put together (I think). To become a saint you need to have performed three verified "miracles" (might actually be 2, not sure). So TSCs idea is certainly not childish. The term

Cool sidenote:

"Devil's advocate" was first used to describe the (obligatory) person who argues against an individual's sainthood.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not an encouragement of unprotected sex.

How else would they create generations of morons believing in something so utterly ridiculous?

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

This is damn near trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just near?

May the Holy Father rest in peace...

[Emmitt2222]

He will almost certainly become a saint from my perspective but it can not be certain for awhile. You must have three miracels atributed to you to become one, which I guess you know from your post. Usually these miracles do not happen in life however. The miracles that are often attributed to saints occur through intercessary prayer, so like I pray that JPII up in heaven pray to God that my leg be healed and it is, that's miracle #1. There is the whole process to go through so it takes awhile, they have to be venerable, beatified and then they become a saint. Some saints did not get recognized for centuries. He will probably be on the fast track like Mother Theresa, but just to show how long it can take, Mama T is still only Beatified, not yet a saint. Sorry if you knew most this already.

[lorinda]

FUC K OFF, SERIOUSLY GO SOMEWHERE AND FUC KING DIE.

Coming from the nastiest, most rasicst, ignorant pig of a person on the whole of 2+2 I can't believe that this came in this particular thread from this particular person.

Lori

[Inthacup]

[ QUOTE ]
This is trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed your post

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
Schonborn

69-1 (yes, really)

[/ QUOTE ]

"Young, considered charming, multilingual, reminds people of a young John Paul II "

This doesn't seem to add up. Maybe something really bad happened in his past? Maybe he has one extremely liberal viewpoint?

[lorinda]

Calm down.

I was calm until TSC started his idiocy.

There are people in this thread who were never told it is all made up.

Lori

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
Calm down.

I was calm until TSC started his idiocy.

There are people in this thread who were never told it is all made up.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be so disrespectful to other people's beliefs.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]

FUC K OFF, SERIOUSLY GO SOMEWHERE AND FUC KING DIE.

Coming from the nastiest, most rasicst, ignorant pig of a person on the whole of 2+2 I can't believe that this came in this particular thread from this particular person.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then I'll second it...

FUC K OFF, SERIOUSLY GO SOMEWHERE AND FUC KING DIE

[ThaSaltCracka]

haha, yeah I knew all that already. My HS was a Christian Brothers HS. The founder of that Order, Edmund Rice was beatified while I was there, and he died over 100 years ago. It is definetely a long process. I was just asking though if any miracles had been attributed to him or not.

You seem to be very knowledgeable on this topic, did you go to Catholic school?

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
Calm down.

I was calm until TSC started his idiocy.

There are people in this thread who were never told it is all made up.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not about what you believe, it's about common courtesy. If I saw a Catholic going on a pro-choice board (or thread, whatever) and calling them all baby-killers I'd call that trolling too.

Thanks to all who corrected my post. Haven't read many of her posts, subsequent replies quickly showed I should have removed the "damn near" part of my post.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Calm down.

I was calm until TSC started his idiocy.

There are people in this thread who were never told it is all made up.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]
No, you have been insulting everyone through this entire thread. Do everyone a favor and take your ignorant ass somewhere else. We don't want to read anymore of moronic, disrespectful posts.

[lorinda]

It's not about what you believe, it's about common courtesy. If I saw a Catholic going on a pro-choice board (or thread, whatever) and calling them all baby-killers I'd call that trolling too.

Are you aware that the very presence of such a thread on a gambling forum is insulting to the person you are talking about?

Lori

[Emmitt2222]

Theology major at probably the most Catholic college in the nation. [I can just feel people's image being lowered of me as I type this, because obviously I am steeped in pure bull and am horribly biased. There goes all my cred... if I ever had any]

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not about what you believe, it's about common courtesy. If I saw a Catholic going on a pro-choice board (or thread, whatever) and calling them all baby-killers I'd call that trolling too.

Are you aware that the very presence of such a thread on a gambling forum is insulting to the person you are talking about?

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.firekite.com/store/misc/pics/forum23/stopposting.gif

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not about what you believe, it's about common courtesy. If I saw a Catholic going on a pro-choice board (or thread, whatever) and calling them all baby-killers I'd call that trolling too.

Are you aware that the very presence of such a thread on a gambling forum is insulting to the person you are talking about?

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

So that gives you an excuse to show us all how dumb of a bitch you really are?

[ThaSaltCracka]

which school?

and a theology major? wtf are you gonna do when you get out? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
Theology major at probably the most Catholic college in the nation. [I can just feel people's image being lowered of me as I type this, because obviously I am steeped in pure bull and am horribly biased. There goes all my cred... if I ever had any]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your posts are extremely balanced and informative.

[mmbt0ne]

Just a little more on the debate over the next Pope. I just found this article (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1373737/posts) a little bit ago. It was written on the 30th. Here is the last portion of it:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
Nevertheless, the smart money is going on the College of Cardinals appointing the first "third-world pope,", chiefly as a response to shifting demographics within the church. Since John Paul II became pope, the church in the northern hemisphere has lost followers while the south has gained. Today nearly 65 percent of Catholics live in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

With the college's inherent bias firmly stacked in favor of cardinals from the southern hemisphere, Vatican watchers believe the most likely candidate will be Cardinal Francis Arinze, 72, of Nigeria. He would be the first black African pontiff since Gelasius I (492-496).

Arinze is said to take a hardline position on abortion and contraception and denounces homosexuality. Other third world favorites are Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez, 62, from Honduras, who teamed up with Bono to campaign against third-world debt, and Cardinal Claudio Hummes of Brazil.

However, some senior members of the hierarchy fear that, with Christianity's influence on the wane in the West, there is a powerful need for a European Pope to be appointed to arrest decline.

One name mentioned is 71-year-old Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Brussels, but he is thought too liberal. Meanwhile, the more conservative members of the European camp admire 58-year-old Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna. Schonborn, though, suffers from his relative youth. John Paul II has served more than double the length of time of the average papacy, and the cardinals believe the next pope should not be in the role for so long. The present pope's longevity has meant he has been able to shore up his power base by surrounding himself with the like-minded.

It has meant that, even when his health has been ravaged by Parkinson's and related breathing problems, the pope's position has been unassailable, his invisible hold over the church, if anything, strengthened by his suffering.

"What's important in my mind is to see that the church functions. Nothing has stopped," said Andre Vingt-Trois, the archbishop of Paris, emphasizing that the pope is still very much in charge.

Indeed he is. Regardless of who succeeds him, long after John Paul II has died, his influence will linger.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
You are now ignoring this user. You will no longer see the body of any of their posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Emmitt2222]

[ QUOTE ]
which school?

and a theology major? wtf are you gonna do when you get out? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Its called Franciscan University of Steubenville [in Ohio]. You probably have never heard of it because it is pretty small but if you know any conservative [I hate this word, but I kinda have to use it] Catholics who are really into their faith they may know of it though.

And what am I going to do? Funny you should ask because that is what everyone asks. Most people here double major so that they dont just have theology. I am currently discerning priesthood /images/graemlins/shocked.gif Don't worry, I plan on quitting poker before I join the semenary, I have a long way to go in terms of bettering myself so if I have not always presented myself in the best manner I'm trying to get better, and NO I will not molest small children, just as 99% of priests don't.

[ThaSaltCracka]

wow, you are far more dedicated than I, and you are right, I have never heard of that school.

which order are you thinking about joining?

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
Its called Franciscan University of Steubenville

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Two girls that I went to high school with are going there now. At least, I know they went there in 2002 after we graduated. I assume they're still there, but I haven't talked to either in a while.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
He will almost certainly become a saint from my perspective but it can not be certain for awhile. You must have three miracels atributed to you to become one, which I guess you know from your post. Usually these miracles do not happen in life however. The miracles that are often attributed to saints occur through intercessary prayer, so like I pray that JPII up in heaven pray to God that my leg be healed and it is, that's miracle #1. There is the whole process to go through so it takes awhile, they have to be venerable, beatified and then they become a saint. Some saints did not get recognized for centuries. He will probably be on the fast track like Mother Theresa, but just to show how long it can take, Mama T is still only Beatified, not yet a saint. Sorry if you knew most this already.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to nitpick, what we are talking about is cannonization. Mother Theresa is (highly probably) already a Saint just like everyone else in Heaven. She just has not yet been cannonized. Same thing for JPII.

[Emmitt2222]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its called Franciscan University of Steubenville

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Two girls that I went to high school with are going there now. At least, I know they went there in 2002 after we graduated. I assume they're still there, but I haven't talked to either in a while.

[/ QUOTE ]

names?

[ QUOTE ]
which order are you thinking about joining?

[/ QUOTE ]

I still have a lot of discerning to do, but most likely choices at the moment are diocesan or perhaps the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, who are hardcore. Father Groeshel is the most famous one, he was one of the founding members. They are in the poorest areas of the Bronx and work with the poor.

[jstnrgrs]

Then I have a question. Are preists not allowed to play poker?

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
The Church does allow something called Natural Family PLanning NFP, where you can have sex during certain times of the month according to the woman's cycle

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume this is the same as the so-called "rhythm method". Have there been any improvements on it in the last 25 years or so? Because I was always taught it was no where near 99% effective. Also I know several families who weren't permitted to use it until they had 5 kids or more - at least this is the way it was in the 60's. I've also heard stories about women in bad marriages being forced to stay together, at least until things got so bad they were forced to go against the church and get out.

[Emmitt2222]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He will almost certainly become a saint from my perspective but it can not be certain for awhile. You must have three miracels atributed to you to become one, which I guess you know from your post. Usually these miracles do not happen in life however. The miracles that are often attributed to saints occur through intercessary prayer, so like I pray that JPII up in heaven pray to God that my leg be healed and it is, that's miracle #1. There is the whole process to go through so it takes awhile, they have to be venerable, beatified and then they become a saint. Some saints did not get recognized for centuries. He will probably be on the fast track like Mother Theresa, but just to show how long it can take, Mama T is still only Beatified, not yet a saint. Sorry if you knew most this already.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to nitpick, what we are talking about is cannonization. Mother Theresa is (highly probably) already a Saint just like everyone else in Heaven. She just has not yet been cannonized. Same thing for JPII.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for that clear up, your right. By saying saint we just mean that they are in heaven and we as a Church don't make them anything else in heaven just because of titles we give them on earth.

[ThaSaltCracka]

props on the decision man.

and yeah, you can still play poker, right?

[lorinda]

To those who I offended in this thread I apologize.

My intention WAS to stir a heated debate, it was NOT however to offend people.

I have never met anyone religious before and although I expected some backlash, it appears I did not fully understand the depth of people's convictions on this.

Lori

[Emmitt2222]

haha, man I have way too many posts in this thread.

Priests are allowed to play poker I would guess, like just a friendly game with people. If I joined an order I would never have time to play anymore. No matter what priest I could become, I would never need any source of income so online poker would be unecessary and if you are really commited to your parish/community, you are always busy. I would just say that you could possibly do it from time to time, but you probably wouldn't much.

[Emmitt2222]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Thanks

[ThaSaltCracka]

never discuss politics and religion with friends.

and there are people far more passionate about religion then most of us who have posted in this thread, which is scary.

[Emmitt2222]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Church does allow something called Natural Family PLanning NFP, where you can have sex during certain times of the month according to the woman's cycle

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume this is the same as the so-called "rhythm method". Have there been any improvements on it in the last 25 years or so? Because I was always taught it was no where near 99% effective. Also I know several families who weren't permitted to use it until they had 5 kids or more - at least this is the way it was in the 60's. I've also heard stories about women in bad marriages being forced to stay together, at least until things got so bad they were forced to go against the church and get out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope no one gets mad at me for posting so much in this. Anyway, from the statistics I have heard it is around 99% as long as you stick within the guidlines and yes this is because of a lot of medical advance in figuring out the woman's cycle. People most often use this is the beginning of a marriage, however, when they don't have enough money to support children yet. The reason for using this method must be pretty serious so it can't just be that you are sick of having kids.

Don't really know where the whole women getting out of marriages thing fits in there, but the Church does permit annulments which basically says that the marriage was never truly valid. The reasons have the be serious, but in your example it sounded like they were very serious and definitly had grounds for an annulment. Physical and mental abuse definitly count. The Church just goes against someone getting divorced, which as GK Chesterton says is "just bad Metaphysics" because in the Bible it says that the two become one flesh. You can not make one into two again so you have to prove that it wasnt valid in the first place or you are cheating on your first spouse if you marry again after a divorce.

OK, I'm officialy done because I am too longwinded and overenthusiastic.

[zephed56]

Good post, thanks for explaining it.

[jdl22]

change your location it should be:
viva el papa

[Arnfinn Madsen]

With his views upon many moral questions I just disagree totally. On the other hand, he showed respect to the fact that people had different views. All leaders like him, and most wars would be over.

[Dead]

The world seems suddenly a little less bright, we have all lost a very holy being regardless of which religion we claim(or don't).

A great man who will be missed by so many around the world, Catholics and non-Catholics.

His last word was "Amen".How very fitting.

Farewell to one of the greatest people in the 20th century.

[Clarkmeister]

bump to save lots of repetitive arguments.

[tbach24]

ty

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
With his views upon many moral questions I just disagree totally. On the other hand, he showed respect to the fact that people had different views. All leaders like him, and most wars would be over.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the rate the population would grow, wars would be even worse.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With his views upon many moral questions I just disagree totally. On the other hand, he showed respect to the fact that people had different views. All leaders like him, and most wars would be over.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the rate the population would grow, wars would be even worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, there'd be so many more Catholics than others that the wars would be unnecessary since the outcome would be a foregone conclusion. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif