I think it's been proven time and time again that people would rather give money to a person holding a bible than a person holding anything else, no matter what's coming out of their mouth.

And i'm not blaming the Pope for all the worlds problems. I would just like to see a little progress.

I didin't do that, either. I'm still here defending what I said.

The words "we're the IRS and we're here to collect on your tax lien" seem to do the job much better.

Have you ever thought that you simply can't force people into accepting your cause?

To listen to you we're still living in the middle ages. Progress IS being made, with or without the church's influence. You give the Catholic Church way too much credit; credit it does not deserve.

What you said was that because KidRockX is a white male then he has nothing to worry from the church. As if him being a black female, all else being equal, would've changed anything about the church's influence on his(her) life.

I don't expect to see insta-change, and I think there are other factors involved. I just think if seven year old get together and talk (no not try to convert eachother, of find some 'shared" aspects of God) that they get more used to having their differences. Look I go see my family in Israel all the time and no offense to them, they're a biunch of racist, very violent, idiots. They are, I hear the dumbest stuff out of most of their mouths. My cousin took a rifle to his own wedding. He's that paranoid. And he's not important, its not like a politicaians wedding or something. My youngest cousin started going to these interfaith discussion summer programs in the States when she was seven. I think she's maybe almost out of highschool now. She's the last ounce of brains on that side. Its just that people that are constantly exposed to this, get used to it. My family is very religious, geesh my gradnmother almost kicked me out of the house when I was fifteen because I put parve food that had been cooked in a meat pot into a parve dish that (well wasn't because there was a dairy table cloth on the table). You get the point? The point is all that talking means you've heard it, you know it, and you can just get on with practicing your own religion and they can get on with practicing their and you can still bump onto eachother at the local convenient store and be friendly.

Interfaith discussion is good because while one may argue that members of any institution optionally put themselves in its space (or can remove themselves from). Members of other institutions don't. They still need to have functioning relationships. Great Wall of CHina didn't last, why should the Great Wall of the Vatican? Its just about exposure and learning diplomacy and building communication. I'm not asking for everyone to love the same God, I'd be screwed if that was the case cause I'd have to give up my own understanding of transcendentalism too.

With all due respect dolce, Catholics around the world are in no great danger of being blown up and are not blowing up anyone on a regular basis. As long as the majority of Muslims is forced to live under dictators who are bent on keeping their people in pvoerty, no amount of interfaith talks is going to change one simple fact: the less free the people are, the less likely they are to listen to the voice of reason.

Krem, no direspect in return, but if you can argue the necessity to pre-empt a war, I can argue the necessity to pre-empt religious animosity. Even if its not about raging violence, yeah I don't think the Catholics are going to go nuts and shoot anyone anytime soon as an entire group of people, but i also think no group can function as an island. I can't believe you really have an issue against "talking" i'm not saying they write eachother's religious doctrine or something. I'm saying send your ten year olds to a religious camp together a couple of times. Yeah, it just comes down to the fact that I think it can lead to a much heathier foundation than saying "talk with you?? why would we ever want to do that?"

Yes I said there were many other factors too, and that I can't blame just religion for anything today, but I can also say from observing my family, the one person who regularly faces difference (in this case religio-politically) in later year swas the only one that could handle the idea of that maturely.

I like the idea of interfaith dicussion. So sue me.

Thats funny because the church likes to get into everyone else's lives..

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with interfaith discussion; it can be quite educational for religious people I guess. But hoping that discussion in and of itself can help bring about peace is somewhat unreasonable. If anything, such talks can be held only after the peace already achieved. It is very hard for me to imagine someone going into the Gaza Strip and holding interfaith talks there.

Its global. There are plenty of interfaith discussions here in the States right now I think. And like I said, my cousin is from Tel Aviv and she sat down to this stuff with Palestitnians. It happens, I agree its not an insta-fix, but I also just don't see why anyone would have a position for seriously discouraging it or look down upon it as a potentially more productive way to anticipate the future. what's the laternative? Isolation? Thats a great idea. Kids that are talking now at 5 are just not going to sound the same at 40. They may be political, violent, military leaders, but hopefully they won't be into religious/ethnic cleansing. Gotta start somewhere, right?

It;s not about alternatives; it's about reasonable expectations. I don't see expecting interfaith talks to have any real impact on the proximity of peace as reasonable. So chastising the new Pope for not promoting them kinda misses the mark. We need to chastise dictators, religious or otherwise, for holding their peokple down. Once the people are free and prosperous, violent religious intolerance will go away by itself. All you need to do is compare, say Turkey or Lebanon with the likes of Iran or Syria.

If the situation weren't so serious, the idea of interfaith dialogue in the Middle East would have me rolling on the floor laughing like a maniac.


But I'm not in the mood for that (yet...).

There's a saying among the terrorists and extreme fundamentalists in that region: First the Jews, then the Christians.

So, first, we'll wipe the Jews out (read:Israel), then the Christians.

As a Christian from the Middle East, I can tell you that anyone who ascribes to interfaith dialogue as a means of healing any rifts is way off the right path. We're talking about people going into villages and, at the threat of beheadings, forcing people to convert. How do you think Islam spread in Iraq? By peaceful means?


Anyways, Islamism, which is now pretty much synonymous with fundamentalism, was a return of sorts of Islam by the poor, the sick, women, the young, and the needy (read: those who were not in a position of power), as a means of escape from the horrible life in poverty they had to endure.

Then it started to become involved with politics, beginning in 1979 with the Ayatollah and thereafter (Taliban, etc.). Islamic teachings were perverted left and right by those in power who knew that it was an effective means of riling people up, keeping them in check, and keeping themselves in a position of power.

In many ways, to the scum regime that controls Saudi Arabia, and the other scum in Syria and elsewhere, Israel was the best thing that could have happened. They now had a target at which to direct the anger that else would fly in the face of those regimes.

I saw an interview with this Palestinian terrorist who lovingly calls himself Hitler, and I swear I could see fear in his eyes when the reporter asked whether jobs would be available after peace was established (if it would be) with Israel. Even this guy knows how things really work.

When a peace deal is signed, and I'm positive the Saudis and others will try their best to avoid it, the attention will shift to the horrific conditions under which most Arabs live. You can't blame Israel anymore, so whom do you blame? Maybe something really is wrong when a few thousand Saudi princes earn billions while 23-25m of their people are given no proper education and live in conditions more reminiscent of Africa than Dubai.

Once there is peace, I don't think interfaith dialogue is even needed; Jews were not necessarly treated well by Arabs historically, but unlike European Christians, they did not single them out specifically. They were more or less as well (or badly) treated as Middle East Christians and other non-Muslims. Anti-Judaism* as pronounced as it is now didn't enter into the Middle East until Europeans came into contact with the Arab world in earnest through evangelization efforts and somesuch (along with Christ's message, good old European anti-semitism* was also spread). In addition, as stated above, the Arab regimes found in Israel a superb target.

So basically I agree with Krem.


*Arabs may be anti-Jewish or anti-Israel or anti-Zionist, but they are not anti-semites. Most semitic peoples in the world, the overwhelming majortiy, in fact, are Arabs. A semite is someone who speaks a semitic language, and Arabic, like Hebrew, is precisely that. It's one of the etymological ironies that recent events have brought about, heh. Palestinians could certainly not be called anti-semites, since they themsleves are semitic peoples. Oddly enough, they are closer genetically to many Jews than many European Jews are to others of their faith, although they all are genetically indistinguishable. That's another case of irony.

What are you talking about? Doesn't matter how free and prosperous a country is, it could probably use a good sittin down with and talking with the Jews. America's (relatively) free and prosperious you think there isn't massive amounts of religious intelerance? You must be kidding me.

Its a building block, and its also in need of constant attention in order to push away from regression. You could put a kid in 4th grade and he'll have straight A's, but if you don't bother sending him off to middle school, you don't open up that path for continued investment, even as a concept. I think the minute someone encourages isolationism, whether political or religious, or damn even suburban, I think its just going to open up a completely different mind set. Interfaith dialogue is about encouraging a certain mindset, thats all. Its like we're going here. We'll probably never conviince eachother otherwise on taxes, but it still broadens peoples' minds to have heard it, spoken about it, vehemently disagree about it, and then woken up the next day and spoken about it again.

Really I'm not going to argue this point. We're going to have to agree to disagree. Its a big deal for me but probably a very small one in the shceme of things for the Church, anyways, even then there are massive issues that probably warrent mre pages on, but I wasn't really expecting them to change. INterfaith dialogue is actually much less controversial and dramatic of a position, which is probably why I'm surprised pretty much anyone is outright against it anymore.

WTF? He was once a champion of Vatican II before he freaked out over the "Red Menace."

He used to be... A LIBERAL. (Which in Dubya's America=Communist.)

Jesus H Christ on a pogostick. Whatever happened to the sons of the Counter-Reformation?

Well they might if he's an altar boy. \:D/

Why shouldn't they? After all, the Church has always been there for them when it came to contraception, AIDS, marital turmoil, family violence... and the possibility that their sons and daughters might be gay and are therefore damned to hell for all eternity.

The Vatican routinely diverts monies (that their various Congregations earmark for charity - the cornerstone of the Christian faith) for usurous purposes - a mortal sin. So after the Vatican hopped in the sack with the Mob, the question of virginity was no longer an issue.

The Monolithic Church's days are numbered anyway. Change is in the wind. (see AUTONOMOUS BISHOPS, AFRICA and SOUTH AMERICA)

An atheist knows about as much about God as a Jew knows about the Roman Church. :wink:

G, yer talking about a product of the Hitler Youth movement who - to this very day - doesn't even recognize the ordination of "his" priests because they were ordained by bishops who weren't of the "right" Order

Yeah, that'll lead to further dialogue, you betcha. Like, "You better get the hell outta my Father's House, you satanic scumbags.

And remember the name assigned to this pope... and Malachy's prophecy.

And neither are the Catholics after Vatican II =D>

A mini history lesson for you Catholics.

Our Protestant forefathers came to America to get the fuck AWAY from your bloody Inquistion...
but you followed us here anyway.

(And don't even mention the Conquistadors, as we handed them their heads =;

Funny, that. Almost precisely what the Crusaders said in the c12:

"First the Jews, then the Muslims."

And the rampaging Christian hordes made a rather good job of it... before THEY got their asses kicked all the way back to Europe. =D>

To quote Robert De Niro, as Louis Cypher in Angel Heart, "They say there is just enough religion in the world to make men hate one another but not enough to make them love."

And there in lies my problem with organized religion. I don't have a problem with people lookin to a higher power for guidance or to make them feel that life isn't a waste of time. What I do have a problem with is corruption and power and how they go hand in hand. Corruption is not an ephemeral concept nor is it something that's immune from certain ideologies or movements. The way I look at organized religion is that it is teh one organized body that is ripe for the higehst level of corruption. How can it not be? You have an entire faith of people that hang on every word that an "elected" official says. This elected official is said to be the highest and most revered being next to God. Yet this being, this false profit, which he is, has no one to govern him. And who knows what goes on behind closed doors. People listen to what he says and yet no one questions that his views are so homophobic, they are sexist and in some csaes racist. And what it comes down to is that no one is stoic enough that they would not be succeptible to corruption. Now don't ask me for evidence of corruption, I am not privy to what goes on at the Vatican, but if you guys can buy that there is corruption in government, then what is so hard to believe that there is corruption in the Vatican?

Do I believe in God? Not in the Biblical sense. I don't think the bible is real, nor do I think that any of the stories are true. I just find it hard to understand how anyone can believe that Jesus was here and that Noah and Adam and Eve and so on really were here. Dinosaurs predate the Bible by billions of years yet evolution vs. creationism is still a hot topic. To me, the Bible is a great fairy tale, just like Harry Potter or maybe any Stephen King story. And if I'm wrong, I would expect God to forgive me because at least I have a mind of my own and I don't follow in the footsteps of others because the bible tells me to.

Like Keyser Soze says, "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him." :wink:

Hey dolci,i think you will like this new pope,you guys just need to give him a chance.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04 ... index.html

Pope Benedict XVI outlined goals for his papacy Wednesday, including the unification of all Christians, continuing the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and reaching out to people of other faiths.


"The new pope knows that his task is to make the light of Christ shine before men and women of world -- not his own light, but that of Christ," Benedict said.

"With this full knowledge, I would like to greet all those, including those who follow other religions ... to reassure them that the church wants to continue with its open ... sincere dialogue looking for the true good of man and of society." (Excerpts)

Yes the inquisition was a horrible act,even the vatican apologised,but dont be to cocky,it was protestants who killed the majority of native americans,you just remember that.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/4/19/143103.shtml

Anything that mentions the Pope and the Apocalypse in the same breathe is ok by me.

So,he's going to be the pope of peace huh?