DescentBB

....well, the Pope seems to think so. Interesting interview out this week.
On a lighter note, there was this response:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/b ... -pope.html

I think the church has every right to obsess over abortion…homosexuality…not so much.

But in the end, I really don’t care what any given church obsesses over.

Me thinks the new Pope is trying to recruit more Catholics to fill the church's falling ranks by being more modern and less Medieval.

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?Article ... ryId=14091

Maybe they should go the muslim way and threaten people with death if they don't convert to catholicism. Maybe a beheading or two...kill some non-catholics at a mall...

ThunderBunny wrote:Maybe they should go the muslim way and threaten people with death if they don't convert to catholicism. Maybe a beheading or two...kill some non-catholics at a mall...

they already tried that, centuries ago.

tunnelcat wrote:Me thinks the new Pope is trying to recruit more Catholics to fill the church's falling ranks by being more modern and less Medieval.

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?Article ... ryId=14091

Medieval seems to work well with Islam.

callmeslick wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:Maybe they should go the muslim way and threaten people with death if they don't convert to catholicism. Maybe a beheading or two...kill some non-catholics at a mall...

they already tried that, centuries ago.

Yes and stopped it. Muslims are still doing it.

so, since one party went through that phase at an earlier point in history, they are morally superior? Sorry, I don't accept that. They have merely evolved at a different pace.

Relatively speaking, unless you carry the sins of the past on forever.

I wouldn’t have picked you for the original sin type. Personally I reject all of that sins of the past BS.

In fact, I can even forgive people of things they did in their own lifetime, If they show signs of truly changing, and remorse.

callmeslick wrote:so, since one party went through that phase at an earlier point in history, they are morally superior? Sorry, I don't accept that. They have merely evolved at a different pace.

please clarify

The current Islamic year is 1434. Think about what the Catholic Church was doing during the fifteenth century. During the age of discovery, the natives that didn't convert were slaughtered. If you don't know this about the history of christianity, maybe you should sit this debate out Cuda.

didn't ask for clarification from you now did I, so thanks for interjecting into my conversation with someone else

there are a lot of things he could be referring to and I was looking to be specific in my response.

but I guess you probably didn't know that, probably didn't care either HUH? so Maybe you should sit this one out since you weren't get that nuance.

well, it was as well put as I would have put it. Islam is in relative infancy as a religion, and both Christianity and Islam, at about the same period of development, got involved with radical 'conversion' processes(Crusades, settlement of the Americas and parts of Eastern Europe, for the Christians). So, I see no inherent moral superiority, as I said, that Christians ought to claim over Muslims.

read up on the Moors and the Franks. Islam was 100 years old at that time and they considered themselves to be rulers of the world. not much has changed in the 1400 years since. kinda hard to excuse non change in 35 generations

CUDA wrote:read up on the Moors and the Franks. Islam was 100 years old at that time and they considered themselves to be rulers of the world. not much has changed in the 1400 years since. kinda hard to excuse non change in 35 generations

if you cherry pick your examples, the same can be said of the tolerance of some Christians.

callmeslick wrote:well, it was as well put as I would have put it. Islam is in relative infancy as a religion, and both Christianity and Islam, at about the same period of development, got involved with radical 'conversion' processes(Crusades, settlement of the Americas and parts of Eastern Europe, for the Christians). So, I see no inherent moral superiority, as I said, that Christians ought to claim over Muslims.

By that standard, any new religion has several thousand years to kill and maim with impunity.

Sorry it’s a new world, no more excuses.

Spidey wrote:By that standard, any new religion has several thousand years to kill and maim with impunity.

Sorry it’s a new world, no more excuses.

If, somehow, I inferred in the least that either religion was right, morally, ethically, whatever to act like that, that was not my intent. I merely stated that neither can claim moral high ground, and both would be best if they looked within.

CUDA wrote:read up on the Moors and the Franks. Islam was 100 years old at that time and they considered themselves to be rulers of the world. not much has changed in the 1400 years since. kinda hard to excuse non change in 35 generations

And if we pick out another period in history, the Abbasid Caliphate fostered the greatest intellectual achievements in the world at its time. It's interesting how things change and cycle.

Well, slick I wouldn’t go that far…but it does sound like a “he did it too” kind of argument.

My parents gave me hell for that kind of thinking.

You are correct Spidey, there are no excuses. But realizing that the majority of Islamic countries were still in the nomadic phase until the discovery of oil is a pretty important part of the equation. Now, this is in no way excuses their archaic beliefs and violent tendencies, but what else do you expect? Even with the information that we have today, there are still people in this country, hell there are people that post on this board, that still believe the world is only 6000 years old. The point is people believe and do some really, really stupid ★■◆● in this world in the name of religion. How to fix that? Hell man, you got a good idea and I'm more than happy to listen.

Cuda, you were looking for something specific and you simply responded with "please clarify"? Get a grip old man.

I'm guessing they don't teach English there at Clemson huh Zuruck.
Maybe you should go back to grade school and ask your teacher what a clarification of a statement is. Because that's when the rest of us learned what the word meant.

"I" wasn't looking for something specific. I was looking to see what slick was referring to with specificity, don't let the nuance of that elude you

Awww....sounds like someone needs their afternoon nap.

CobGobbler wrote:Awww....sounds like someone needs their afternoon nap.

then go tell your mommy you're tired. tell her not to forget your bottle

Hahah....zing! What a terrible comeback.

Back on topic since the old man is probably having an early dinner at Denny's....it was good to see the pope make those comments. Doubtful that anything will change their doctrine, but it's a good step that at least they recognize their blind eye to everything else. Good to see this pope actually practicing what he seems to be preaching.

(dont forget to leave your 5% tip Cuda!!)

Oh, the level of dialogue in here.