Another reason for me to not like the current Pope
 

Pope: Other denominations not true churches

Benedict issues statement asserting that Jesus established ‘only one church’


More on the story.

I wonder how he feels about non-Christian denominations? :rolleyes:

I think every church thinks they are the one true church.

Thankfully that is not true.

I belong to the Church of Shiny. We are the one true church.

Popes are dumb

Ahh, and this is why I am agnostic.

On the other hand, a few times I have had the pleasure of going with one side of my family to this really groovy church that was the opposite of denomination. While the congregation was predominantly Christian, I met a Buddhist family and a few Jewish people that chose to attend. They talked about spirituality, and did use some scripture, but it wasn't in the brimstone and hellfire way I'd remembered from my childhood. Oh, and they took pop songs (and by "pop" I don't mean Britney Spears, I mean The Beatles, Rolling Stones, some older than that, some newer than that) and non-Christian poetry and related it to spirituality.

I always go waiting for the cult aspect to come out... it always seems too good to be true. I've had so many bad experiences with organized religion. But, I've yet to be pounced upon there.

All-in-all, the most bad-assed church I've ever gone to.

Oh, but on the topic of Benedict XVI, I hope he doesn't drag Catholicism to before the days of Vatican II.

Pope Palpatine strikes again.

Now there's a shocker:

Pope thinks the Catholic Church has it right!

Tomorrow's shocker of a headline:

Tom Cruise Finds Making Movies Financially Rewarding!


Kevy, got some examples? What other faith is so broad minded that it will accept as correct the Catholic Church's belief that it has the only acceptable route to god?

Heheh, good point, Alex.



Still .... any opportunity for someone to post a picture of the creepiest-looking Pontiff ever while referring to him as Pope Palpatine is a welcome moment of lowbrow humor to me!

Can I also add that he's the ugliest pope ever?


:D

Considering he also re-introduced mass language that calls for the conversion of Jews, I think it's pretty obvious where he stands.

Even uglier than Pope Pius V?

Ooh, Sixtus V what a keeper (and can I say I love the name Sixtus the Fifth).

I need a cat named Sixtus the Fifth.

Aww the Popes used to look like Santa

Sixtus sounds like an STD...

Afterwords the Pope Eggs Benedict was quoted as saying "Nah, nah-nah, nah nah - my God's better than yours!" then blew raseberrys and thumbed his nose to the group.

And they used to wear jeweled beehives on their heads!

I mean really... what's gayer than this?

His dress is pretty.:)

Liberace would be proud.

Actually, Liberace would've used shiny lame instead of white silk ;)

Pope...
 

It was his pope name.

His birth name was Felice Peretti.

Sadly, there does not seem to have been a Pope Sixtus the Sixth.

Sixtus I - 117-126 AD
Sixtus II - 257-258 AD
Sixtus III - 432-440 AD
Sixtus IV - 1471-1484 AD
Sixtus V - 1585-1590 AD

(Yes, I know it is redundant to include AD in Papal terms but I was just making it clear they were years.)

Good. I live in hope for the pope after Palpatine dies. I want a Sixtus the Sixth in my lifetime!





(But, when I think about it, my great grandchildrens' Sixtus the Seventh would be waaaaay cooler!)

Sounds like the Anti-Christ.....dumdumdum.

until one or another religion actually produces god saying 'yeah, dis be my crew', then one telling another theyre wrong just smacks of conceit

Get out of my brain!

Oh dear, iSm.... you know about this, don't you? Sixtus the Sixth... hmm.... I hope there aren't any Italian cardinals named Peter right now!

This reminds me of one of my favorite Stephen Colbert quotes that I use frequently to make my coworkers scratch their heads:



I hope that Sixtus the sixth, seventh and eighth have short papacies because I'm waiting for Sixtus the ninth.

I cannot find the animated image of the pope turning into the emperor. It was really popular when he was elected.

Damn kids these days don't know how to Google. Why, in my day, we didn't HAVE Google. And we LIKED it!

A dissenting opinion ...
 

This may be an unpopular opinion, so I am going to keep this short, and as un-preachy as I am able, but I believe the Pope is correct.

The newspapers are taking much of what Benedict says out of context, as, I suppose, they are wont to do. There seems to be a definite anti-Catholic leaning in the media these days. Whether you feel that it is deserved or not, is for another thread.

Nevertheless, your views on Catholicism aside, the Roman Catholic Church is the only church that can be traced, Biblically and historically, directly back to the original disciples. In particular, the Apostle Peter, with whom Jesus essentially “gave the keys" to spread His teachings. Jesus built His church upon the Apostles as something that would continue indefinitely until the end of time, ruled by successors of these same men. Ergo, Pope Benedict.

You may not like it, but this was how the Mother Church came to be.

The Pope is not pulling this edicts from inside his tall Pope hat, in fact, they are based on what Jesus intended, which was one church in His name – the Roman Catholic Church. Not several thousand separate entities preaching His word -- but one.

My personal feeling is that everybody is welcome to belong to whichever church they feel is right for them.

To paraphrase another church leader, L. Ron Hubbard, “What is true for you is what you have observed yourself.”

Catholicism may not be for you, and the current Pope may rub you the wrong way, but it is the church founded by the Apostles on the command of Jesus. And you cannot say that about any other church.

The Pope is betrayed as the great divider, though he has no intention of being such. What he is doing is stating the exact position of the Catholic Church, as it has been for two thousand years. In other words, his words are only news to non-Catholics. Indeed, in order to have any sort of open dialogue, you must state your positions as clearly and as honestly as you are able. This is what the Pope has done. He should be applauded, not derided.

And so, I had said my peace, and to quote Charles Chaplin to the critics attending a premiere of Monsieur Verdoux, "Proceed with the butchery ..."

And what about Greek and Russian Orthodox which broke off from the original Roman Catholic church. They trace back along the same line. Same with Episcopal, they use the same liturgy just changed the ground rules around a bit.

I think a lot of the protestant faiths recognize that the catholic church was the church established by Jesus, however, they felt that the original church had "lost its way" and so they started the new church to bring things closer to what they believed was intended. So as far as "true" church... well, it's sorta like a member of the nobility that has two sons. Firstborn son inherits the estate, even if Son #2 looks and acts a lot more like dad.

I'm not suggesting the validity or lack thereof of any claims, just explaining a position they may hold.

I spent some time looking last night. I could not find the animated one. I was looking for a specific one that had a caption reading: Look it's the Pope.... OH CRAP!

I know someone here posted it soon after the election. At least I think LoT was around. It was on some board we were haunting.

Now, I have to be so careful with my words, Alphabassettgrrl, but if you follow what Jesus intended per the Gospels then it is important. It is very important. To a Catholic, this isn't just any ancestry. It is the ancestry of God's word.

But again, I am speaking as a Catholic. You are welcome to pray where-ever and with whomever you desire.

And to Katiesue, the moment they broke off from the Mother Church they broke that line. You can not change the rules, even a bit and be faithful to what was first preached 2000 years ago -- this according to the Church.

My feeling is that maybe I should break off my end of the discussion here. I do not want to give the impression I believe any one group is better then the next.

To quote the gospel of XTC

This is your life and you do what you want to do,
This is your life and you spend it all.
This is your life and you do what you want to do,
Just dont hurt nobody,
less of course they ask you,
In the garden of earthly delights

But, things HAVE been changed! The bible itself has gone through enormous changes (the fact that a book called "The Bible" didn't even exist 2000 years ago is just the tip of the iceberg). The "rules" have changed, morphed, developed and gone by the wayside over 2000+ years. Such is the nature of mankind.

Another thread, my eye.

Please point out where Jesus "intended" this. If you mean it's what the writers of the Gospels intended, then say so. But don't go putting intentions into Jesus' mind that there's no evidence for.


If you have such evidence, by all means bring it forth.



ETA: Reading onward, it appears you are referring to the Gospels. We will have to simply agree to disagree that they have any bearing on what Jesus intended. (Which Gospel, for instance, would be the one where Jesus' true intentions were stated?)

I don't really see anything controversial in what Tref said. That is the view of the Catholic Church and has. officially, always been the view.

That is the view of most protestant churches: Jesus founded the church, over time the church was corrupted and our particular blend eventually recovered the original truth.

Thus my original reply above: well, duh.

It seems self evident that everybody who is not a Catholic will think these views are wrong. Or else they would be Catholic.

Tref: why would you cease a fascinating line of discussion?

Honestly, I'm not particularly shaken by "We're right, you're wrong" statements from any religious entity. It's the nature of religion.

However, this in combination with the restoration of language calling for the conversion of Jews is a much bigger issue for me.

One must also remember that the "Bible" is but a shadow of what it was originally and has been rewritten and had many parts discarded by old white men.

Oh good, you believe in Torah, then?

GD: Does anyone, really? I mean, all that stuff in Leviticus about animal sacrifice, no one does that any more.

And, despite what unnamed Protestants may espouse, Jesus founded no church.

Umm "On this rock I build my church" is pretty definitive.

What was that about the Nazi Pope?

Dammit, do I lose the argument now? ;)

It doesn't work if you invoke it, Cherny.

I don't know nearly enough about it to say yeah or nay. However, when at one point in my life I was searching for an outlet for my spiritual yearnings, Judaism appealed to me most early on (though as many know, I have since started practicing Wicca, a form of Paganism).

Has anyone seen The God Who Wasn't There? It's pretty interesting.

Here the wikipedia link...

I know, hence the ";)".

Still, he is a creepy Nazi Pope. Plus his social views make Ann Coulter look like Al Franken in comparison.

Precisely.

GC is my hero!!!!!!!

The reason the sacrifices aren't done any more is because there's no more Temple. Same goes for our own high priests. We had our own "pope" style set up, back in the day, and that ended when the second Temple was destroyed and the Dome of the Rock built in it's place.

If the Temple still stood, Judaism would be a whole 'nother deal...

My point was, if we're going by accuracy of transcription, Torah has been transcribed by hand precisely for over 5000 years. So if that's the measure of whether something's worthy of belief...

Precisely!

If the Temple still stood... would you still be Jewish? I mean, how would you feel about adhering to your religion under those circumstances.

(just curious, this isn't really relevant to the discussion)

Also... how does the lack of the temple nullify sacrifices? Didn't the early prophets built altars wherever? (I'm not challenging you here, I'm actually dead curious as to how Judaism changed from then to now)

I was talking about Cherny invoking Godwin's law by bringing Hitler into the discussion on purpose and then referencing the effect of bringing up Hitler on fulfiling Godwin's law.

Hmm, OK ...

Well, I will say this -- at the moment, I attend Mass six days a week, though I have not always been so fervent a Catholic. For me it is an experience. A way to gain knowledge that I did not have before. I've spent some years of my life studying different religions, and I could tell some weird stories about things I seen. In the end, though, I went back to my religion of birth. The one I was baptised in -- Catholicism. As it turns out, the church in my neighborhood is one of the more conservative churches in Los Angeles. The pastor of my church is one serious dude. He is the size of Oddjob from the Bond movies, with the shaved head and physique of linebacker. When he speaks, you cannot help but pay attention. And when he gets mad at the congregation, you can hear a pin drop, nobody moves a muscle. This guy will even taunt the room during the sermon by saying something intentionally incorrect. He'll squint his eyes and an evil smile will break on his face. "Right?" He'll ask. "Am I right?"

And the poor old folks in the front row will squeak, "R-i-ight?"

"WRONG!" the pastor will scream. "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!" Then he'll slap his head several times, or beat his giant paws on the podium. "What is wrong with you my Catholic people? How many times must I teach this?"

Nevertheless, for somebody like me, who truly wants to know what each little thing or action means, this kind of priest is perfect. This giant of a man who would loom high over the congregation, even if they were all wearing stilts, does not skip a step, miss a hymn or leave out a vowel. He even introduced Latin to the Mass, a full year before the Pope officially approved it.

However, I also want to know the history. The real story. The dirty laundry. The scoop on the apostles and all their foibles. And for that I went to bookstores. Anyway, I think I have wandered a bit. I am bored. Sorry.

To: Not Afraid. No, it really hasn’t changed. Its true the Bible was never originally meant to be distributed to the masses. Its purpose was to be used within the church as a guide for the Priests. Then came the printing and then the translations ... However, the text itself, despite the many translations, is as it was when it was first written. Jesus’ word has not been altered from the original Greek. It is as it was.

To Innerspaceman: Whether you like it or not, the writers of the Gospels are the only word of Christ we know. What do we know of Jesus that is not in the gospels? The Gospels are all we have -- there is no more. So, when these same men say that Jesus wanted a church built -- one true church, who can argue? Accordingly, Jesus gave the job to the Apostle Peter and he is the Roman Catholic Church’s first Pope, in an apostolic succession that goes on to this day. For people who argue that this is not history but church lore, I say, tell me how those two differ? History, as we understand the word, can not even prove the existence of Jesus. Not a single historian who lived during that age wrote of Jesus, not even in a sidebar. Not one. Nata. Why? I don't know. Many have theorised it was because Jesus never picked up a check and historians were by and large a gossipy clicque, but that is just a theory. So where does that leave Jesus? We know of him only because of these men.

To Goulish Delight: I say this, read the whole news article. There is a noticeable anti-Catholic bias in the media. The prayer that speaks of the conversion of jews has been changed, or, rather was changed 40 years ago. As far as I can tell, that change is permanent.

Either way, the return of the Latin Mass is significant.

To Kevy-baby. That is just not true. No old white men have stripped the Bible of anything. In fact, people will often point to the contradictions of the Gospels as proof of its unauthenticity, when, in fact, the very nature of the Gospels contradictions with each other is proof they were never touched, fixed, or otherwise altered from their original text.

Despites the jokes, the Church is not run by people who want to profit by what they are doing. They are people who have totally devoted themselves body & soul to praising God. They are there because they truly and sincerely believe that every word of the text is sacred. Why would these same people then sit quietly as its meaning was altered?

Anyway, I hope I haven't offended. I have a rule -- never talk religion. And I broke that rule in a big way this afternoon. And while nothing personally offends me at all, I just thought I'd stick up for the Pope. Things weren't looking to good for him in here.

While I think that many Catholics today practice so out of a true desire to devote themselves to God, from the Pope on down; however, from what research I have done (a.k.a. not a lifetime's work, but enough to suffice for a few projects), I cannot believe that it was always done without a profit/power motive.

Much of this, of course, has caused my agnosticism. I do not claim I am right, because I cannot know. Besides research, I have other reasons and personal faith explorations that have led me to this point.

On the other hand, faith is something that can hardly be argued. For if one truly believes, existence and meaning of a God or gods is known only in oneself, or so I've figured all these years. I hardly mean to quarrel about religion because how do I argue against it (outside of empirical evidence I feel points to a lack of a "god," but hey, that's me and I still don't know and refuse atheism because... well, because I can't know). It's a conclusion we all come to by circumstance.

Or so my opinion goes...

And Tref, I am truly fascinated with your line of discussion, and am not offended in the slightest. If I were, I'd feel like I was going against myself... somehow.

Great post. Tref. I was raised Catholic, and while I most certainly do not agree with a lot of their tenets, I respect their history and do hold them to be the first Christian church, one that all other Christian churches- whether they like it or not- stem from. I still intend to poke fun at Benedict; blame that on JP, as he had a sense of humor and he kind of spoiled us in that regard.

I won't pretend to know all that much about the Catholic Church ... but if the alarming differences in the various Gospels proves they were not tampered with, does it also not infer that most of them ... if not all of them are wrong?

Which one is deemed correct? Are they only deemed correct on the points where they agree? Do Catholics believe there were several simultaneous true yet different events on the points where the Gospels conflict?


And Tref, it's ok to break your rule about talking religion here on the LoT. Don't take my sanctimoneous tone as an attack. It's a truly interesting topic which many of us are enjoying discussion of.

But I am an anti-religionist skeptic, no doubt about it. Yet neither do I hold anyone with religious leanings in any disregard.

And I quoted the wrong post.

Apparently you and I are reading 2 different articles. Are you referring to this?

That 40 year old change is precisely what Benedict reversed last week.

Poorly worded, but it's saying that with this decree, the Pope reintroduced the same version of the old Latin mass that was in use when it was removed in 1962, so it does contain the same language calling for conversion.

As a Jew in a world where antisemitism was already on the rise, from a Pope with Benedict's personal history, I do not find this insignificant. People are trying to pass it off. "No one's required to say it," "Most people will still use the new rite." But that's not the point. Religion, and specifically the Papacy, are all about symbolism. Whether it's put into practice or not, the Pope's actions affects attitudes.

This is like asking a Protestant - if Martin Luther had never tacked his letter on the door, would you still be a Christian? Impossible to judge, impossible to say. The world itself would be a different place, in both cases.

From my current perspective, I'm no fan of ritual sacrifice, but again, that's in part because ritual sacrifice hasn't been a part of Judaism since the year 70, CE.

Nope, sacrifice was only in the Temple.

In this vein, I think Christianity is smart. Whereas the Torah is, according to Judaism, the word of God dictated to Moses, the Gospels have never claimed as such, and instead, are the very personal points of view of different human beings. The inherent concept is that there is no way that one person could have gotten these events down correctly, and that every person has a different perspective. They're all right and they're all wrong, and the truth is supposed to come through various perspectives placed next to each other. This concept is a pretty heady life lesson in itself.

I'm fine with that. But don't expect any rational person to believe that any particular account in any particular "Gospel" got Jesus' quotes right or knew what was in his head. Jesus said this or Jesus said that is simply someone's memory .... the memory of someone who probably couldn't pick out Judas in a line-up.

(Eyewitness testimony was likely no less error-prone than as it is today, so excuse me for doubting anyone's 30-year-old memory on what Jesus purportedly said or did.)


We're not asked to accept the Gospels as quaint varying accounts ... but rather as "Gospel." The fact the word "gospel" is supposed to be synonymous with "true" is your clue for how literal they're supposed to be taken.

To which I say, 'feh.'

Wait - there's a possibility that someone on this board would be able to discuss with me the difference between the Humiliati and Waldensians and the reasons for the inclusion/exclusion of various reformer sects into the Church? Just the very thought has my neurons all a-tingle.

Tref, and all, please continue.
I'm finding this to be a fascinating discussion. I don't know Jack about Popes and less about the present one. I confess (at least I'm in the correct thread for confession) that I do find at least the persona of the present pope less appealing than John Paul II (at least his public face and persona was great). When he (JP, II) came to SF in 1987 (I think it was) I was among the crowds getting a peek at the pope.

One thing that the four gospels certainly don't contain is first person testimony. If you look at them, you'll see that they don't even pretend to. (None of them are written in the form of first-person recollections.) They were composed (in many cases compiled) over a long period of time, collecting oral traditions and earlier texts in response to the needs of numerous early church sects. Even the names attached to their titles come from tradition, and not from any claim within the texts themselves.

Scholars (a reasonable consensus of them) consider Mark the earliest of the canonical gospels, and Matthew and Luke are very clearly rewritten and re-edited versions of Mark, containing big chunks of identical passages, which is precisely what we would not find if they were independently written testimonies. The authors of Matthew and Luke had theological reasons for making their additions and subtractions to the text. They were serving different early church communities, who all had different local traditions and theological preferences. The later gospel of John is radically different from these three, and contains a far more developed theology. There is plenty of internal evidence for all of this, and it's loads of fun to ferret out.

The early Christian communities were nothing if not diverse, with major sects favoring rival traditions, (Pauline vs. Petrine for instance) and the understanding of exactly who Jesus was (his Christology) was in constant dispute. Catholic orthodoxy emerged slowly from these communities, and ultimately succeeded in the marketplace. So, they got to establish the official canon, no doubt redacting the materials a bit in the process. (There's lots of internal evidence of this in the texts as well.) I don't begrudge them. I think they actually did pick out the best texts. (Have you read any of the gnostic and Nag Hamadi literature? I would have left it out too.)

New Testament criticism is one of my favorite topics/hobbies - I'm not a believer (though I once was), but I find the topic endlessly fascinating. There are lots of good books out there, based on scholarly research, and there's loads of crap in the more sensationalistic "Holy Blood Holy Grail" vein. I prefer to skip the speculative stuff.

Earlier in this thread, mousepod posted a link to "The God Who Wasn't There." One of my favorite scholars appears in that documentary - Robert M. Price. He's worth reading, and he has a regular Sunday podcast called The Bible Geek, in which he answers questions about the scriptures and the origins of the varioius faith traditions. He favors the view that Jesus himself is a legendary figure, but he gives all points of view a fair hearing, and his breadth of knowledge is stunning. Also, he's a very funny guy. You can find him at www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/

gosh, I was just going to post a sentence or two - oh well

The thing I believe is that we will never know the absolute true history. Any religion (Catholicism, Judaism, Paganism, etc.) is simply a belief system. The Bible is gospel (fact) if one chooses to believe it true. And I am not knocking that detail (I have my own beliefs), just stating what I believe to be true.

It IS true for me as well as many others. And our truth is no more or less truthful than anyone else's. There is available reputable scholarly research that supports what I stated. Some may not agree with it and I cannot dispute that belief (just as one may not agree with my beliefs). But to me, it is all about belief, not true, irrefutable fact.

Unfortunately, the church has been (IMO) severely harmed by scandals involving not only financial scandal, but more recently by sexual scandals. I am sure that most of the people involved with the Church have pure intentions, but unfortunately the church has been oft harmed by the minority.

And I admire your dedication and conviction. One of the things I LOVE about the LoT is that we can disagree on certain issues, but still remain a close group. Never be afraid to speak your mind around here!

Maybe we need a Pope named Jack. Pope Jack. Hmmm...

On a somewhat related note. I'm looking into getting tickets to the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibition here in San Deigo for the Friday or Saturday after Thanksgiving if anyone would like to join.

Wow! That sounds thoroughly unpleasant, not to mention borderline cruel. I hope you don't mind me asking, but, do you prefer this style of homily over a gentler kind? Is this more authoritative style reassuring, or would you be happier if he didn't do this? I would be running for the exits.

Ooh, that sounds like fun KatieSue!

Early Christian sects, Nag Hammadi texts.... there are now several of you that, should I chance to meet you in person, will be forced to discuss these things with me. You have been warned.

(I've read part of the Gospel of Nicodemus as translated into Old English! Could I be any geekier?)

I could loan you my copy of the Gospel of Judas...

I'm going with my crazy mother and my dotty elderly aunt hence the day after Thanksgiving suggestion. But I'm totally open to doing it another time while it's here without the relatives.

well, Im game, family or otherwise.

Will the Pope be there?

No - the Pope exhibt was at the Art Museum two years ago - you missed it :)

If I lived out west, I'd be there.

There is an intriguing sounding display of New Testament documents on display at Orlando's own Holy land Experience. It sounds like they have some authentic and old stuff, but I know, from a previous visit, that their presentation is going to be aggresively evangelizing. (Every show and attraction there ends with an invitation to accept Jesus.) I may go anyway.

Tref's description had me thinking of Karl Malden's preacher in Pollyanna. Hopefully, he'll one day play the glad game...

I wouldn't want it any other way. The pastor of my church is the real thing. The kind of larger then life character you would only expect to find in a movie. I have actually seen him interrupt a sermon because he caught somebody in the congregation chewing gum! He walked off the alter with his long arm outstretched. I did not dare turn my head to see who the offender was. Nobody did. We all kept our focus firmly planted on the empty podium. “Give me the gum or swallow it!” He roared. The person apparently swallowed the gum. Now, that is old-school priest! I sometimes cannot believe I am seeing it for real, for it seems so of another era. Now, I am a bit sadistic, so I find that kind of stuff funny, but the guy also has a genuine sense of humor.

My feeling is if you have come to learn about the faith, he is the best teacher you could ever hope for. He often says, “The road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests.” In other words, there is a special place in Hell for priests who fail at their job of saving souls. Heavy stuff, but as I said, he is one serious dude.

Interesting. I can see where there would be some entertainment value. I presume you haven't been on the business end of his wrath yet. (I double dog dare you to chew gum next time you attend.:D )

Wow, fire and brimstone, indeed. Sounds like he should be preaching the Old Testament.

Tref - I find your enjoyment of the preacher to be so intriguing! How do you feel after a sermon? I think I'd feel badgered, and if it worked, frightened of the wrath of God. I've held for a long time that we shouldn't be good out of fear of retribution (and that includes fear of punishment in the human realm) but because we enjoy life and we want to make the world a happier place to be in.

What the hell is brimstone, anyway?

Sulfur.

While I agree with the early points he made I must admit that I've just been assuming that since most of Tref's other posts are some form of performance art that the posts in this thread have been as well. But whether true or just spinning a yarn, I know many people who gain a lot of comfort from the strength and certainty displayed in such a style. If religion is simply the instinctive impule to find answers where only uncertainty is seen, then not allowing any uncertainty in the answers will be appealing to many.

I can see how some people would find comfort in being told what to do, even in a forceful tone, but I'm surprised to find Tref among them.

Regarding Benedict's statement being of surprise to anyone except non-Catholics: that's just not true. A large wave of modern Catholics have been taught that a person has the right to practice the religion that they believe in, and we are not meant to condemn. I came from a pack of (somewhat more) open-minded Catholics, and we were happy for anyone who was able to connect with their spirituality in any way that helped them and helped those around them. While, yes, we were taught that Catholicism was built on the rock of Peter, the roots from which we sprung... we were not taught that those who did not believe in Christ were going to hell.

For that matter, my diocese sang a blessing that had two verses, which started:
"May the lord bless and keep you, may he let his face shine upon you..."
and
"May the lord bless and keep you, may she let her face shine upon you..."

Certainly I have had major problems with some of the edicts of the church and some of the crises that were ignored (from the association of the church during WWII, to the cowardly action that led to the abuse of children, to my first-hand experience with the treatment of a wounded woman outside of the Vatican walls just two weeks ago.)

But my preference (in most situations, really) is to appreciate the good around me. The influence and guidance of those who I watched treat others kindly because it is a good thing to do (and not just because it "reserves a spot in heaven.") Religion may be an opiate for some masses, but for others, it is merely a rock upon which to lean for strength in times of need. And whether that religion is Catholicism or any other sect of Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or the Church Of Walt, for that matter... their faith IS the one true faith. To them.

A Confession.
 

Clearly I have said too much.

Life is a learning process, folks. You can stay sheltered all your life and read about things that happen, or you can step outside be part of things that happen. I am not saying anything new, right? Well, I like being part of things that happen, but there is only so much time in the day. I have chanted with Krishna's down Powell Street in SF, I have been locked in a room by a cult and asked to levitate an ash tray ... I could go on and on. I am not saying that I attend church for a lark. I would never do anything for a lark. I do it to understand and discover. To paraphrase George Harrison -- there is nothing so important that you can do in life, then the search for God. I believe that. Life is too brief and an eternity of darkness is too unsettling for me to ignore.

I have a rule -- keep your cards close to your chest. And I have done that, more or less, for the years I have been on this site. It is not performance art. It has never been. This is me. For that reason I am not an immediately likable person. But whatever you may think of me and my posts, I do not have patience to dissuade you otherwise, either good or bad. That has always been a fault of mine.

Anyways ...

Oh the cult thing sounds like a juicy story... I do hope you'll tell it some day!

Tref, I just want you to know that you're special, just the way you are. It's how we like you.

Not immediately likable?! Balderdash. I have always loved your posts, and your presence here. I missed you when you've been away. You bring such fun to this place.

If my comments insulted you in any fashion, or if you think I think less of you for your religious convictions, I sincerely apologize, as it was not my intention. I would love to hear more of why you feel the way you do, but I understand if you do not want to discuss it. As long as you enjoy your own religious practices, and they are a source of comfort and inspiration to you, helping you lead a better life, then by all means! :)

If you don't wish to continue on this vein, I understand, though I'd love to hear more, and only question you because I'd love to hear your perspective. My post regarding finding you among those that enjoy being told what to do was simply a reaction to Alex's post. I guess I wasn't clear enough in saying "if Alex is right, then it says this about Tref, which would surprise me, and I want to hear what Tref has to say further."

Anyway, over explained, carry on. :)

(To the tune of "Spiderman")

*hem, hem*

Nazi Pope, Nazi Pope
Master race's one last hope!

Nazi Pope, Nazi Pope
Gays and Jews, turn them into soap!

Look out -- here comes a-Nazi Pope!

:D

OK, so we know where Cherny is spending the afterlife...

Since this thread has all ready taken a few weird turns, here is another I thought worth noting -- the first Hindu prayer said in the Senate. That it was interupted by three lone Christians is not really news, so ignore the media's attempt to make it as such.

I know of the Hindu religion only through the Krishna's in Berkeley, CA. It is a beautiful religion and if you are ever in Berkeley and want to eat the best food in the world -- for free -- go to the Temple. There is no preaching, leaning over your shoulder, etc. In fact, they probably won't talk to you at all. Just hand you a plate and lead you to a long, long table of some of the healthiest & tastiest food you've ever eaten. I really believe it to be the best food I have ever had.

Though its traditional Indian food, the tastes are very simple. They are not allowed to use the spices used by most Indian restaurants.

There is a Temple in the Venice area, as well, though they will charge you a small fee to eat in their cafe. I think Blueerica can back me up on how good it is ...

If you go, tell me, I just might meet you there.

Free Sunday feast

Govinda's
3764 Watseka Avenue, just off Venice Blvd
310-836-1269; Temple Number: 310-836-2676
Hours: Monday to Saturday 11 am to 3 pm, 5 pm to 8:30 pm
Closed Sunday for feast that begins at 5:30 pm

Pure Vegetarian Indian and American. Many of the dishes contain dairy. Juice Bar

Managed by the Hare Krishnas. The food is great and very reasonably priced. Recommended. Laid-back, casual, spiritual atmosphere. Has a good Indian Gift shop upstairs selling books, clothing, incense, religious items, deities and gift items.

Other Info: Cafeteria style, take-out, catering. Non-smoking. Reservations not necessary. Accepts MC, VISA.

Directions: This place is located next to a Hare Krishna Temple, just off Venice Blvd, at the border of Culver City and Los Angeles. Between Motor & Robertson. From I-10, take the Robertson Blvd/Culver City exit, then go southeast on Exposition Blvd (or Robertson Blvd) a few blocks, at Venice Blvd turn right and go a half-mile, at Watseka Ave turn right and this place is in the second building down on the right. Street parking.

That sounds awesome. You guys keep coming up with good reasons for me to head west.