Obamalama Crazy

OK! But I must say that this really surprises me!

I always thought that the Pope conversed directly with God and the Cardinals, the Cardinals with the Pope and the Bishops, etc. down the chain of command whereby the Priests converse directly with the people.

I just took it for granted that if someone converses directly with God, Sainthood is guaranteed.

I do realize that theologic doctrine does not use the word "converse". I don't know the exact verbiage but perhaps "whispers" would be better; the Pope and God whisper to each other.

Bob Guercio

 

Yep, that's what they say.

Regards
Kruska

 

A great many Popes became saints in the very early church, but between St. Celestine (1294) and Pius V (who excommunicated Elizabeth I of England in 1570), there were NONE. Then between Pius V and Pius X in 1903 there were also NO popes who gained sainthood.

Pius X was the last one canonized. Being Pope isn’t the fast track to Sainthood, not now and not in the past either.

Here is a pretty interesting "Wiki" list:

List of popes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are centuries where there are none, or only one or two, of course a great number of them were less than "saintly" even in the eyes of their contemporaries!

 

At what age does a person's "imaginary friends" turn into diety?

 

Excellent question, perhaps when you can convince your friends the imaginary friend is real, and they can talk to him too?

 

That worked out well for:
The Branch Davidians
The People's Temple Agriculture Project
Heaven's Gate

I guess it's all good untill you: drink the Kool Aid, Eat the Applesauce or hang around for the Bar-B-Que.

How many world leaders have exalted themselves to the level of diety; either by design or by circumstance?

Politics and Religion are responsible for more deaths than old age (kidding...maybe). If you think about it every war has been fought for either political or religeous reasons; in the case of WW2 we had a "Twofer". Look at the middle east, Look at Serbia in the 90's.

 

I hold politics and religion with the same esteem; they are opposite sides of the same dysfunctional coin.

I consider myself politically and religiously agnostic. I do not consider myself an atheist because in order to be an atheist you have to be willing to accept that there is a "god" or religion to not believe in and that, by it's very definition, is hypocritical.

I also find it strange that a country, which was first settled under the auspices off religious freedom and equality, would become so divided and intolerant of other people's beliefs.

Religion and politics are intertwined and why one should be anymore off limits, or taboo, than the other escapes me. We throw around the words liberal and conservative and accuse eachother of fallowing the wrong political party. Is that any different than accusing someone of heresy or blasphemy and following a false prophet?

Where do you draw the line?

If Liberals are Democrats and Conservatives are Republican does that mean one is more Christian than the other?

The Koran teaches modesty and conservation in all facets of life does that make Muslims Republicans?

Are all homosexuals Liberal?

Was Lenin a Democrat besause he espoused the virtues of Socialism?

Maybe the Buhddists have the best grasp with their quest for perfecting one's self through tolerence and sacrifice.

In either case religion and politics have no place in a World War 2 historical discussion forum, and if you make room for one you will eventually have to make room for the other.

That's all I have

Brad

 

QUOTE=formerjughead;405424]I consider myself politically and religiously agnostic. [/QUOTE]

Although I agree that politics is a dysfunctional enterprise, it is ever present and necessary.

Everpresent because where you have two people, you have politics. I certainly don't like this but "that is the way it is".

Secondly, how could we survive without politics? We wouldn't be able to elect our leaders and where would that leave us?


QUOTE=formerjughead;405424]I also find it strange that a country, which was first settled under the auspices off religious freedom and equality, would become so divided and intolerant of other people's beliefs.[/QUOTE]

I may not like this as a fact but I fully understand it. People are naturally xenphobic and this follows naturally from evolution. As we were evolving, there was danger everywhere ( perhaps this is still true!). Those born with a tendency to be more suspicious than most would be alert for trouble and be more likely to survive. They thus would be around longer to procreate more than others and to pass along that "suspicious" gene.

QUOTE=formerjughead;405424]Religion and politics are intertwined and why one should be anymore off limits, or taboo, than the other escapes me. We throw around the words liberal and conservative and accuse eachother of fallowing the wrong political party. Is that any different than accusing someone of heresy or blasphemy and following a false prophet?[/QUOTE]

I never thought about this before but this is so true. It seems that I am allowed to freely say why someone is wrong to believe in the Republican point of view but I cannot tell them why they are wrong to believe in God.

QUOTE=formerjughead;405424]In either case religion and politics have no place in a World War 2 historical discussion forum, and if you make room for one you will eventually have to make room for the other.[/QUOTE]

Politics was certainly involved in the start and even the prosecution of World War II so if we cannot declare it an off limit topic and still maintain any semblance of an objective forum.

You probably meant current politics should be off limits but even there you could run into problems. For example, I would not be able to compare the Iraq war to World War II.


Brad[/QUOTE]

 

Richard, I believe the problem came when people decided to make politics a career choice rather than a choice of serving ones country.

 

Arent we forgetting Congress in all of this?? lets all review the separation of power... the executive branch doesn't make laws

 

That should be easier to read

 

I believe that this is the exact problem jemimas. More so than who is actually president but which parties control congress and the presidency. Everyone loves to tote Clinton around as such a great guy when it came to the budget. The only problem I see is that the republican Congress denied him spending much of the money he wanted. I see it now, same as with Bush. When one party controls both, they let each other get what they want. In the end it produces laws which are completely unnecessary and extensive amounts of debt. It is my opinion at the moment that the problems we see come more from congress than from the president. What was that quote from Pelosi(sp?)? If it comes from a republican I will block it no matter what. That doesn't sound like she is interested in the welfare of the American Public. For proof of the evils of a one party system one can look at Northeast PA and our problems. Judges sending innocent children to jail for personal profit, School Administrators demanding in excess of 100,000 dollars for teaching jobs, Convicted felons running for public office against people with open mob associations, and more or less everyone determined to set up for themselves some very extensive kickbacks. Our state ethics commission has has several ethics complaints filed against it. Then you have the opposite side of the coin where a Republican State Senate is blocking just about everything our Democrat Governor is doing(not that I agree with what he is doing), which results in thousands of people working for free because the state budget hasn't yet been approved. I'm sorry but a one party system doesn't work nor does a two party system where each party is the polar opposite of the other. No in-between area to cover the masses.

 

Mike Mike Mike.....

Well said... I think we all forget how minimal the presidency really weighs in on laws and change. I will be the first to admit that I remain ignorant in many areas of politics, and strive to further educate myself as best as I can. I guess striving towards change is the premise behind this whole thread. Obama has the vision for change, unfortunately whether or not that will take place remains open ended.... Hope is a word I choose to hold onto. I know this world is no where near perfect, but the sooner congress/president choose to do what is right and ethical, the better for all who occupy this beautiful country I appreciate your words and time Mike

take care.

Mark

 

The part about Clinton is only part of the whole picture. Clinton and the Congress were still working with the existing PAYGO law, which had been passed in the years of Bush I, and was still in effect when Clinton took office, and had to deal with a Republican Congress for the last six years. It was kept in effect during the Clinton years, but allowed to lapse as soon as Bush II took office, and it came up for renewal.

Now we had a Republican Congress and a Republican President, and Congress didn't wish any restraints placed on Bush II. Now instead of force of law as the original PAYGO was, it was reduced to a "suggestion/guide-line", and not binding as to spending after 2002.

Just my own opinion here, but when PAYGO lost its status as "law" and became "guide-line", defict spending went through the roof, and here we are.

For the background on PAYGO:

What is PAYGO?

This is "fun" to read.