RicOlie_2

I'll do my best...

K-6a

I just saw your post from yesterday...I can't add much to what has already been said, and am not really in a position to be giving advice for this sort of thing, so I'll just be thankful that your suicide attempt failed, and lend my emotional support. I'll pray for you.

About the time I joined, then.

Well, I'll play it safe just in case it works. ;)

G-6b

Wow...look who's back...

When was the last time you posted before this?

So little interest that you felt the need to excuse yourself for a post on the last page? ;)

DuracellEnergizer said:

Salt and pepper -- which is the male, which is the female?

 If I recall correctly from Blue's Clues, it's Mr. Pepper and Mrs. Salt. But I could have that backwards.

How's it going?

If you're up to it, I think I can play a game now (regular Shogi to start with). I can pretty much guarantee that I won't be able to move more than once per day, except for weekends, but we should still be able to have a decent game.

I'm not up for Dejarik, though, since studying the rules will take up too much of the time (partly because my computer crashes a lot, so I'd have to open everything up every time I wanted to make a move).

I'll let you make the first move, though I might not be able to make mine until Monday.

So you don't like people who feel strongly about their moral views, or do you just dislike when their views differ from yours?

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2,  I'm curious what your take on this is.

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20150908_Pope_should_rescind__Doctrine_of_Discovery_.html

 Firstly, papal bulls are not infallible per se. They can contain infallible teaching if they meet the criteria I mentioned a few posts up the page, which Inter Caetera (the bull supporting the Doctrine of Discovery) does not.

The document must be read in context. In that time period, people were thought to get to heaven only be being good, baptized Catholics. Thus, it was thought that these people could not get to heaven without converting to Catholicism, and it was of the utmost importance to the Church of that time to have them do so. They were human beings with a soul, and many felt that it was the duty of good Christians to bring them into Christianity.

The methods to do this varied. Certain missionaries made great efforts to learn the language and adapt their religion to the culture of the natives. Others (wrongly) thought that it was worth it to forcibly convert them, not considering that interior conversion didn't necessarily come with exterior conversion, and that both were necessary.

These zealous desire to convert the natives was in a sense compassionate. It was done with the intent of preserving these people's souls for eternity; the body not being as important.

That isn't to say there was political motivation involved, and that Alexander VI was entirely in the right when he wrote the bull. It led to much damage, but I believe it was done with largely good intentions.

Going back to the present day: should it be officially revoked? Well, it isn't completely necessary, being that the papal bull no longer has an relevance and therefore no authority, though I do think it would be good for an official statement about that to be made. An official apology for the damage that resulted from it would be good as well.

I don't, however, think that it should be criticized as if it were something evil. It is outdated and misguided, but it was not written so that harm would be done. It was written so that souls could be saved (I'm speaking here of the intentions of the author, not of what resulted from it), which isn't a bad thing. In the context it was written in, it seemed appropriate and good, and just because hindsight has shown us that that was not the case doesn't mean that we should condemn it entirely.

Give me a day or two (or three). I'll find time to properly answer on a day I don't have much homework. I'll have to read up on the exact nature of that doctrine before I can respond.

Mrebo said:

I was flipping through Aftermath in Barnes and Noble. The author is fond of colons (the punctuation mark) and sentence fragments.

 Exactly how my English teacher writes.

Hmm....

To be perfectly accurate, only one papal proclamation has been made ex cathedra since it was clearly defined, but that isn't the only infallible declaration that has been made. There are a fair number of dogmas (infallible teachings), though most Catholic teachings don't fall under that category, as far as I am aware. Other, doctrinal teachings, are considered universally (throughout the Church, that is) binding, though not infallible, if I understand correctly.

There seems to be a lot of general confusion about what "infallible" actually means in this case, partly because it was only really defined 150 years ago. The only time a statement by a pope is infallible is when it is an explicitly universal teaching made on a matter of faith and/or morals.

Only two such statements have been made in the last two hundred years, namely those on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. The canonization of a saint is also generally considered an infallible declaration. Ecumenical councils can also define infallible teachings, provided, again, that they meet the criteria I mentioned above.

The pope certainly has teaching authority when not meeting those criteria; he just isn't considered infallible.

EDIT: Here's the Wikipedia article on it. It seems pretty balanced:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Whether you boycott it or not is up to you. I personally don't think it's serious enough that it matters. It isn't something to be encouraged, but not something that really needs to be fought against, either.

Except Obi-Wan couldn't fly or bilocate, like Padre Pio purportedly could. ;)

For starters, I think it's a bad likeness of him. It doesn't really bother me, but I do think it's a bit misplaced to use his image for a commercial end. Christians aren't supposed to be materialistic and are encouraged to be detached from and generous with what they have.

As for the Pope's image being used trivially, I don't think it is really that important. The Pope deserves respect, but he is only a human being. He has an important role, but in the end he is a servant of God and the Church, not some sort of demigod we need to be in awe of.

I wouldn't want it either. I'd be happy to see Ewan in one of the anthology films, but not the main trilogy.

^What he said. I was going to type up a response, but got distracted....

I never said it was an aborted fetus. In fact, I strongly implied that it wasn't.

TV's Frink said:

Possessed said:

That forum is hilarious.  Not that I have ill-feelings toward anybody in particular that's posting in it. 

 I have ill-feelings toward anyone who uses a fetus as their avatar.

 I honestly don't understand why, even with your past experiences. An aborted fetus would be an extremely offensive avatar, but what's the difference between a picture of a fetus and one of a baby?

That would probably make sense, because it's also the only (or one of two) shots in that movie with a CG Yoda.

That toy makes it much better. Hopefully it does something like that in the movie too.

Even better. Parts of the parade from TPM could work as well.

That would be good!