the pope turns "green". what do you think?

I guess you Catholic folks will have to stop living in order to not sin.  But how do you stop living if you can't commit suicide?  I mean no matter what you're polluting.

The T wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Don't you have some Dream Theater to listen to?         No... I have a planet to save.... And I think I'll do it with both the help of the Pope and Dream Theater...   Cuncuna, your view of the future, though maybe accurate, is kind of gloomy, dark, and pesimistic. I guess some optimism in these matters helps more... maybe.

Le me put it in concrete terms: catholic church is against sex before marriage. Catholic church is also against child abuse. Catholic church seems to be against other religions as well (that catholic boss recently talked about how there was no salvation outside catholic church, I know about this not because I care, but because an homosexual friend told me about this and some strong homophobic statements comming in the same speech). Catholic church is against a lot of things, but nothing stops. Priests keeps having sex (hell, I know one that has a whole familiy), priests have being constantly acused of child abuse. I'm not saying that those two things belong to the same cathegory. Sex is sex and can only be bad if it is bad (...) and if sex is bad then you'll probably won't ave sex again so problem solved. Child abuse is horrible, but catholic church protects and hides priests found guilty of child abuse. As for other religions, they will just exist on their own right, even if catholic church likes it or not. A religion based on love that declares its rejection to a whole bunch of human beings just because of their sexual choice sounds kind of oximoronic... ¿and now they are against contamination?. Catholic church makes it difficult for me to know if they are against things for good or for bad reasons, but I'm certain of this: catholic church won't invest a cent into actual environmental protection.

Slartibartfast wrote: Well, since this thread seems to have gone off topic, what's with wearing a crucifix with Jesus on it when the Bible says not to make graven images?  Isn't that a little like if Jesus had died by hanging, wearing a noose with Jesus?  Just curious...

 

Or

 

EXODUS 25:18 You are to make two cherubim 30  of gold; you are to make them of hammered metal on the two ends of the atonement lid. 25:19 Make 31  one cherub on one end 32  and one cherub on the other end; from the atonement lid 33  you are to make the cherubim on the two ends. 25:20 The cherubim are to be spreading their wings upward, overshadowing

 

Isn't a Cherub of gold a representation of "something that is in heaven"?

 

Of course, but it's not idol, itt's part of the Tabervnacle designed to honor God.

 

BTW: Don't most Christian denominations make cartoon movies of Jesus life? Isn't that creating an image? Why this is valid and not making a statue that represents God and not an idol?

 

If we take this precepts to thee extreme as some really Fundamentalist Jewish communities, pictures of people should be banned, because they are a< representation of a person to hour or to remember.

 

Before criticizing, it's better to understand what we believe is not far from the Bible, it's just a different interpretation, just as Jehova Wittness prefer to die rather than receine a blood transfusion because they believe it's a form of eating the blood, which of course is banned in the Bible.

 

I don't think you matched up any of my points in the right order...

My gut reaction was "populists", but they seem to be sincere, and in that case making pollution and drug trafficking and the like "sins" is a good initiative (though I disagree with their opinions about stemcell research and related issues). The amount of people respecting the word of the Vatican is much bigger than the amount of people respecting the word of (mostly) leftist environmental organisations, or Al Gore. 

cuncuna wrote: To kill is a sin if I remember correctly, but there seems to be a fair amount of killing by money issues in the world right now. I wish I could think like The T, but the truth is, it doesn't matter if a lot of people respect the opinion of a sparragus, money and those who pursuit it are in charge, and they'll just suck the life out of mother nature until there isn't any possible profit to make out of it.

It's really no use speaking of what the bible says and what it doesn't. I don't think anyone in their right mind can actually take all their advice froma piece of fantasy supposedly written many many years ago. Personally I hold it in the same position as the Lord of the Rings, though the latter is much better written and much more coherent. The position that the catholic church has taken since the beginning was to be a moral ruler, and sure, they've realy been left behind by human development, and most of the regulations set by them are in fact against the common rights of a man, set by the societal world. But that's basically two institutions as rivals, the other between people and the other between one image and one receiver. At this point the church does a lot to set sins and hold on to its traditional ones to seem useful and to not lose its credability. A moral law against premarital sex is not the 21st century and will not be taken literally except by fundamentalists.

However, placing pollution under ban in a way as they did is something I can't argue with, even though I like to argue with religions. The Vatican willing to contribute on earthly matters just shows, imo, that they are starting to feel the need of finally making contact with the world, or soon theyäll end up like modern royal institutions. See for example the English royal family, inbread folk around the world basically there just to be celebrities, to go around drinking tax money and having fancy parties. But it's a long lasting tradition. And as much as it is something that stands for everything conservative, it'll always be there at least to some level. Now announcing something a sin sounds most of all funny. I personally should becaome a constructor so that the Satan had something for me to do once i go down there. Seriously, the heaven seems to be very limited while hell is expanding daily. Nothing that really efects your life will make you change your ways unless you already did it. I'm sure this new "doctrine" will have effect on how much carbon dioxide some priests emit when they fart, but here as a sin it would also mean, that they should stop driving around in cars too.

And as far as I know, some sins are not bigger than others, right? Would it then work if we drove to the church and told the priest that, it'd be OK? I don't know, frankly i don't care. I just see Vatican as a forgotten member of the world. Frankly I don't pay any attention to it other than on these occasions. And everything green is very much supported from me. So I'm giving my thumbs up to Pope Ben-what'shisname the something number something. Though it won't be the first time they'll spot, that the conservatives that claim to be highly religious decide not to stop polluting. After all, for most people the only religion is money. And in that sense, one can always just tell God to f**k off for a while and let it settle on itself. I dunno. Just some pieces of my wondering mind here ...

cuncuna wrote: ¿To say that even priests are having sex and even families is Irrelevant to the point that Catholic church is agains sex before marriage and it doesn't works?

Sigh...