Pope declares that he hates most affiliate marketers

Status
Not open for further replies.
zimok

zimok

Click, Whirr.
Oct 27, 2008
2,392
99
0
Canada... eh!
As an ongoing inquest in the psyche of the average affiliate marketer, here on WF, it has come to my attention that some of you may be gay.

...the pope would like to have a word,

Pope likens saving gays to saving the rainforest | Lifestyle | Reuters

Seriously though, it's too bad he can push these views on so many people, what good can come of that? How does he rationalize these beliefs? Does he take everything in the bible literally or something? Any religious people here care to defend his case?
 


nickycakes said:
the catholic church clearly has not alienated enough people
Click to expand...

The Church doesn't alienate people. People alienate people.

The church doesn't make any new laws or rules or anything that hasn't been held to as doctrine for hundreds/thousands of years.

The Catholic Catechism documents centuries of bible-based church doctrine, and isn't like the US legal system, doctrine just doesn't change.

The Pope's only goal is to bring people, all people, into a unity with God. That's it. He's a servant to God, nothing more.
 
I like people who stand for what they believe in, even if that does alienate people. That takes balls.
 
I'm glad to see that not all american people are fucking blind mormons.
French mainstream media sucks, big up Nicky Cakes...
 
bb_wolfe said:
The Church doesn't alienate people. People alienate people.

The church doesn't make any new laws or rules or anything that hasn't been held to as doctrine for hundreds/thousands of years.

The Catholic Catechism documents centuries of bible-based church doctrine, and isn't like the US legal system, doctrine just doesn't change.
Click to expand...

This is simply not true. The most recent example being the ITC ruling on limbo

In 2007 the International Theological Commission(part of the Roman Curia) decided that babies who die without having been baptized can now go to heaven. Prior to this new ruling the official position was that if a baby died before being baptized they would be caught in Limbo. This "Limbo," per the Catholic Church, is a place where dwelt all of the baptized dead; this group includes not only babies but those who had died before the time of Jesus.

The Vatican has a whole establishment for changing rules called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Fun fact: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith used to be called the Holy Office of the Inquisition, but they decided they needed a re-branding after some bad PR.
 
ratamiss said:
This is simply not true. The most recent example being the ITC ruling on limbo

In 2007 the International Theological Commission(part of the Roman Curia) decided that babies who die without having been baptized can now go to heaven. Prior to this new ruling the official position was that if a baby died before being baptized they would be caught in Limbo. This "Limbo," per the Catholic Church, is a place where dwelt all of the baptized dead; this group includes not only babies but those who had died before the time of Jesus.

The Vatican has a whole establishment for changing rules called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Fun fact: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith used to be called the Holy Office of the Inquisition, but they decided they needed a re-branding after some bad PR.
Click to expand...

You could not possibly be more wrong.
 
Like I said, nothing has changed for 100s of years. They have used historical and liturgical basis for their position.

Nor is anything to do with babies in Limbo considered a "ruling"...

in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”. The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.
Finally, an observation on the methodology of the text is necessary. The treatment of this theme must be placed within the historical development of the faith. According to Dei Verbum 8, the factors that contribute to this development are the reflection and the study of the faithful, the experience of spiritual things, and the teaching of the Magisterium. When the question of infants who die without baptism was first taken up in the history of Christian thought, it is possible that the doctrinal nature of the question or its implications were not fully understood. Only when seen in light of the historical development of theology over the course of time until Vatican II does this specific question find its proper context within Catholic doctrine. Only in this way - and observing the principle of the hierarchy of truths mentioned in the Decree of the Second Vatican Council Unitatis redintegratio (#11)– the topic can be reconsidered explicitly under the global horizon of the faith of the Church. This Document, from the point of view of speculative theology as well as from the practical and pastoral perspective, constitutes for a useful and timely mean for deepening our understanding this problem, which is not only a matter of doctrine, but also of pastoral priority in the modern era.

Click to expand...

 
Oh come on, lets not play semantics. Basically before 2007 the official position was that babies go to limbo. Now they go to heaven.

A couple paragraphs worth of vatican political speak cannot change that.

Whenver a position or rule is changed its simply spun as a "re-discovery" of earlier teachings.
 
ratamiss said:
Oh come on, lets not play semantics. Basically before 2007 the official position was that babies go to limbo. Now they go to heaven.

A couple paragraphs worth of vatican political speak cannot change that.

Whenver a position or rule is changed its simply spun as a "re-discovery" of earlier teachings.
Click to expand...

Whatever. Still doesn't change my original post.
 
bb_wolfe said:
The Church doesn't alienate people. People alienate people.
Click to expand...
The Magdalene Sisters Sanctioned by an official policy of the church.
Roman Catholic priests child molestation scandal Not sanctioned by the church, but mostly covered up and ignored by it
The Spanish Inquisition Very much sanctioned by the church
Buy your way into heaven with indulgences Also sanctioned by the RC Church, which is why we have Protestants.

This is only a handful of examples, and your argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It reminds me of the "logic" from gun-lovers that refuse to ban machine guns for private citizens.
 
Manga59 said:
I'm glad to see that not all american people are fucking blind mormons.
French mainstream media sucks, big up Nicky Cakes...
Click to expand...

Did you mean morons not "Mormons"?

And if you cant spell moron does that make you one?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back