http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI read this posted by Annapurna1.... and found... this.

Quote:

Wikipedia found out that the new pope is an intolerant bastard:
Some see Benedict as a traditionalist, others as merely orthodox, but almost all observers agree that he is a staunch defender of the Church. He is an opponent of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and abortion and has spoken about the unique role of the Catholic Church in salvation and has called all other Christian churches and ecclesial communities "deficient." As a Cardinal, he wrote Truth and Tolerance, a book in which he denounces the use of tolerance as an excuse to distort the truth.

[...] In a pre-conclave Mass in St. Peter's Basilica, he warned, "We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest value one's own ego and one's own desires."

---

Quote:

What side? I'm taking the side that their shouldn't be sides and that their should be pure objectivity (as objective as possible anyway) without religious motivation in terms of the law.

---

Quote:

You have heard that it was said, ?Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.?[a] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

---

Was it that important that you needed to reiterate it twice? (damn forums, hate when it double/triple/quadruple posts )

shroomydan said:

1) You seem to be saying that people who believe in God and have objective standards by which they judge morality, people who practice religion, should not be allowed to influence the law, and that only the God-less are qualified to govern.

2) You want freedom for yourself, and tolerance from others, yet you wish to deny the right of self governance to those who see the world differently than you do. Meanwhile you act as if you are somehow being oppressed and make veiled threats with your 'eye for an eye' talk. Your position is contradictory, but of course you don't care; you do not believe in truth, so you simply make up your story as you go along.

BTW,
3) You really should try to study scripture a little bit before quoting it, because you are making yourself look foolish. The Ancient Jewish law from Deuteronomy, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", was written to limit revenge. Under this law if somebody were to poke your eye out, you would not be allowed to kill that person. The revenge which was permitted could be no greater than the crime being avenged.  It was setting a top limit, not a bottom limit. A person who was wronged could chose to exact no revenge and still be within the law.

That's ancient Jewish Law. Christians follow the words of Christ, the fulfillment of the Law.

Quote:

You have heard that it was said, ?Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.?[a] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

---

The Gospel According to Matthew Chapter 5.


4) So, whatever man. You cannot win this argument on a philosophical basis, so you quote scripture and misinterpret it's meaning in a futile attempt to bolster your self-contradicting argument. You can misrepresent the Word of God and then attack your own misrepresentation, but it really is pointless. The struggle is in your own head and heart. You have given up hope. I hope you find your hope again.

Good night
Psychoactive1984

---

1) .... Ok... that's the last thing that I'm suggesting. They can have as much morality as they please, from whatever god they choose... however, their god shouldn't be allowed to interfere in others lives, as their are many gods, and many beliefs, to make laws on the basis of one, is anything but objective; it isn't tolerant, and it's basis isn't inclusive of the democracy that we suggest that we take place in. I'm suggesting that those who place their personal subjective beliefs ahead of objective governing, and ahead of other's beliefs shouldn't be allowed to govern. It matters not what denomination, nor what god you follow, however, if you are in a position of power and you have the direct ability to affect the masses... I'd much rather have someone who's purpose is based solely on objective rule; that is that their primary purpose in establishing, and furthering laws,  based on what is beneficial to everyone, and not those that share their version of black and white morality. Please don't put words in my mouth, unless you'd like me to put shit in yours. (essentially that's what you're doing by making your flawed assertions, and debasing yourself to attacks on my character)

2) I stated that I've nothing to gain, nor am I repressed in any form in accordance with religious decisions in respect to the law. Give me a truth buddy... please, I've been waiting for years to find absolution, and I doubt you'll give me anything but a rehased regurgatation of contradiction. I don't make up the story as I go along... I live, and attempt to live through rationality... sorry, I'll try to follow your story that was made up a few thousand years ago, and go along like a lot of people do, and try to think for myself as little as possible.

3) Read the links that I posted, read what I suggested in terms of justification of beliefs through contradicion. BTW, this is well in line with "an eye for an eye". I'm simply suggesting that politicians fuck with religions to the extent that religions fuck with politics (only to the major sects that actually meddle in legal affairs) and stop to the point that they have vastly impacted said religion to the degree it has impacted law... you shouldn't feel wrong to that notion, as it's justified through the bible (note: not my real feelings, but for example purposes, it'd be more then justifiable through the logic you choose to employ). The bible can be interpreted in so many ways, why their are so many sects... their is no "true" way to look at it, hence the reasoning for so much differentation.... unless you wish to suggest otherwise; either way your entitled to your fascism.

---
You've no idea of my religious background, nor my knowledge, we can get into a large discussion on theology, or you can simply look at some of my older posts. I've been through various sects, (by way of the belief being sold to my parents, who further attempted to sell the notion to me) the worse being Jehova's Witnesses, who are hard core OG's when it comes to biblical interpretation... why, they are so confident in their assertions of their belief.... that they call it "the truth", and they'll even come right up to your door!

I'm a little more versed in the Bible then you might choose to believe.

4) I don't expect to win, nor do I post to win. Stop asserting your beliefs as to why I post here to begin with. By way of your suggestion, I can easily make the assumption that you are attempting to win.... in which case this is all but futile, as that is the last thing I'm attempting to do.

See 3 in regards to interpreting the bible... absolution is where you believe it to be. I have great hope, else I wouldn't continue to do this, just because your absolution isn't applicable to myself, (hence being anything but absolute) doesn't mean that I've no reason to be here.... and more so doesn't mean that I've given up hope. Please don't allow this to dwelve into petty personal attacks, and misrepresentations of character as you have nothing better to argue about, with the exception of your dogma. Please, give me a site that has the "true" interpretation of god, and why it's any better then my interpretation..... If this is your faith, I apologize for macking a mockery of it... but it's done much in the way of doing that to itself.

I hope you find a greater sense of rationality again, and an open mind, , and an open heart to others beliefs and interpretations; without bringing in your absolute truth, that you fail to share... as perhaps, just perhaps, it's a bit more circumspect to the nature of reality then you might choose to accept (just suggesting that so hopefully you'll share it ). As I'm not attempting to taint, nor misconstrue anything that already hasn't been tainted and misconstrued by those that preach it.

Edit:
Cleared up some of my remarks that were uncalled for.
Don't worry, still some stuff in their that isn't called for; I'd prefer to have a civil discussion with you as getting personal doesn't do you or I any good.