Who is the most influential person to have walked this earth??

[Paoli]

The truth is RBLC, and all others, the role of Pope is an honorary position. You are there to "lead" the catholics of the world and guide them, in most cases, exact replicas of their predecessors....

The Pope isn't supposed to come up with radical ideas to change these rules....The fact is, a Pope does alot less work than my parish priest....My Parish Priest makes house calls to those too sick to attend Sunday Mass...He does a 7:30 mass each morning as well as 5 over the weekend. He also takes care of the churches finances, and goes home to a lonely bed most nights...These are the people who could implement change in our church....The College of Cardinals, and the new Dean, that bloke from Chile, forgotten his name, are the people who are supposed to come up with rule changes...In the ideal catholic world, Cardinals like Ratzinger, conservative orthodox people, should be elected as they'd keep conveying the same message.....Also, for those who dont know, the 76 cardinals over 80 aren't allowed to vote as they are considered too old....Then why don't we make popes retire at 80??? It is all a bit too complicated, but all in all, the Catholic Church doesn't want to change its stance on arguably the four biggest issues they face:

1. Homosexuality
2. Abortion
3. Priests being unable to marry
4. Contraception

Benedict XVI says Homosexuality is a "moral evil" and says gays should be refused communion...Also, wonder why Ratzinger chose the name Benedict XVI?? For those unaware, Benedict founded the monastery in Western Europe and bringing the name Benedict back infers that this a European campaign and that Europe is in a state of moral chaos...And yes, that includes Britain!!

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

The whole worlds in moral chaos !

[Zainub]

No it isn't!

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

OK, the world, generally speaking, is in chaos. And actually with AIDS running the through the world at an alarming rate, actually I'd still argue its in moral chaos.

[Zainub]

I think lack tolerance is also a major problem.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

The Catholic church John Paul II inherited in 1978 was in shambles. Reforms begun by the Vatican Council II shook the church to its foundation, and the tumult within the church could be compared to the turmoil in the outer world during the 1960s' era of peace, love and protests over the war in Vietnam.

Well, that's certainly one way of looking at it.. the other is to point out that the Vatican was finally coming to terms with its own remarkable tradition of adaptation and incorporation and with the diversity and plurality of practices that made it such a surprsingly attractive and successful body in places like South America.

The rest of the Catholic world was coming to terms with being a broad Church until the Polish ***** came along... steeped in the authoritarian traditions of his home Church... and promptly set about laying down the law to all the more progressive Cardinals... appointing more reactionary Cardinals... and undoing all the good work that had been done to establish a basis for a more Colliegial Papacy.

The guy was a master of presentation... a performer to rival Clinton... but behind the hollow public image was, to my mind, one of the most pernicious influences the Church has ever endured.

It's not what the guy did for the Church in his lifetime that appalls me.. it's the legacy he's left through (in particular) his excessively long control over the appointment of Cardinals: his own acts set back the cause of progressive Catholicism almost immeasurably.. but his appointments virtualy institutionalise reactionary leadership at a time when the Church needs (as never before) radical solutions (and in particular in relation to other denominations).

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Colliegial Papacy.

Rach, you simply must send me some of that word a day toilet paper

[King Aragorn]

Originally Posted by Ernest

I think Beny the Roman catholic bible has never been re-written in English, ipossible if you think, it has been "Coppied" to English so we can read it, but word for word for the Latin version.

Ernest, I don't have that much knowledge about this issue but surely a translation can never be exactly the same as the original. No?

As Zainub said, no religion teaches intolerance or hatred. Religious texts have indeed been manipulated by some but that doesn't mean that (i) the teachings of these religions are what these people are wrongly interpreting as and (ii) neither does it mean, in relation to the subject, that these religions had no influence on people. In regards to point (i), I think we should all try and understand the fundamental teachings of religions, like Islam for example, rather than just form stereotypes based on the actions of a few (not that anyone is doing that here...).

Originally Posted by Beny

Zanuib, I challenge you to find one faith where people agree on this issue. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all have a long hisotry of violence.

I didn't understand this comment of yours beny, could you kindly elaborate?

[shafiq ali]

I believe that Geoferry Boycott is the most influential person to have walked this Earth.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by King Aragorn

Ernest, I don't have that much knowledge about this issue but surely a translation can never be exactly the same as the original. No?

Hi KA,
What I mean by what I said about the bible being wrote in Latin, because Latin is a dead language, so meanings of words cannot change.
But other live languages over the centuries have changed meanings of words, by updaing words, and the use of slang.
So what I am saying if you translate the bible from Latin to English, or any other language for that matter, you are getting the correct wording of the writers of the texts, word for word, and even if the meaning of the word in English had been adulterated, we would still know what the words meant, becausr the Latin version had remained static.

Originally Posted by King Aragon

As Zainub said, no religion teaches intolerance or hatred. Religious texts have indeed been manipulated.

No faith teaches hatred as far as I know, not from the begining, but what has happened over the years, clergy with their Witch Hunting, the Spanish Inquisition in the 1400s, was supposed to rid the land of heratics, but it was used for more political and matererial purposes, but this was not the teachings of the Church, it was the interpitation at local level, a very dark period for Iberia, and Catholicism as a whole, but it brought suffering and terror to the inhabitants of the Iberian peninsula.
There are also dark days in the world of Islam, but then again it was not the teaching, it was mans interpitation for his own ends, I also agree with Zainub.
Ireland I could never really tell wheather the troubles there were in the main to do with religion, I think it had more to do with Seperation, and Unionism, just happened that the opposing sides followed 2 different versions of christianity, but then again battles where fought in the name of religion.