Hmm, well I'll start off with the blanket statement that I don't think anywhere should be paying loads of money for any one thing or person, and that the pope is asking to be treated as something of an idol, which goes against the Bible. Added to that is the current economic situation, making the whole situation of his expense ridiculous. Now, in response to other parts of your podcast: You discuss areas such as the church being stuck in the dark ages, having offensive beliefs, etc. The problem with this is that "offense" is a fairly subjective thing. While you take offense at their beliefs, Catholics are offended by ones that non-Catholics hold as well. It's an equal trade off, and thus neither can be called right, objectively. Subjectively you can, and each side fully believes it is right, and there you are, stuck right back at the beginning of the argument. So basically, one can be angry that they condemn certain lifestyles, but that person is doing the same thing - condemning a lifestyle with which he or she doesn't agree. I want to say that while there are a lot of things Christianity fundamentally considers immoral, Christians (I'm a Christian, I'm sure you already gathered, though not Catholic) are called to love everyone. We're not called to say every lifestyle is totally OK, or suddenly change our beliefs because they are not popular, but we are supposed to treat everyone with love, kindness, compassion, etc. Obviously this doesn't happen a whole lot of the time, and I've met some of the most obnoxious pricks out there who call themselves Christians, but the religion itself is not supposed to be that way, so don't throw out the baby with the bath water. All parties need to respect each other as people, and give them the treatment they expect and would like for themselves. Yes, the beliefs do not coincide, and both need to accept that, and accept that not everyone is going to believe the same things in life, and there's simply no helping that. Yet if we can value each others' worth as humans, then neither side should be forcefully ramming their beliefs down the others' throats.
Well anyhow, despite the fact that this post has had a lot of disagreement to your points in it, I want to say I am a HUGE fan. I think you are absolutely brilliant, and your podcasts thought-provoking and relevant. Your efforts towards charity are also amazing. I watched and donated during Stickaid, and you were completely hilarious. Oh, and you're hot. Bravo for being hot, brilliant, and funny. You are made of awesome.
You do realise that the Pope took the name 'with the large number' when he became the Pope. He didn't actually have it as a kid. And the Pope shouldn't be judged like a politician, I am gay but I'd be horribly disappointed if he was too afraid to say how he interpreted the Bible and unfortunately there is the argument that 'God doesn't change with the times'.
My beliefs aren't in line with Christianity these days, I guess I am sorta polythiestic ignostic. I mean in an infinitely vast universe held itself within an infinitely vast multiverse there are bound to be numerous 'powers-that-be' right?
First of all: Jenni399, ourhousetx and SteveNes85; thanks for those opinions, they fuel my hopes and believes that people with different (or no) religions can co-exist, if we just see it this way.
I'm not British, but if the pope would come to visit the Netherlands (where I live) I'd be angry if we had to pay for it. I'm an atheist and I believe he should do whatever he believes in, but not with the money of the taxpayers! If I want to go somewhere I gotta save up money myself as well! You might ask; and what about the queen then? Well she's practically employed by us, isn't she? And so is the government. If they have to go somewhere for business, we have to pay for it, as our employers should pay us in the same situation. But the pope, I don't employ him. He's employed by the religious people, so people who want to employ him should give him money for these trips, not us. I would rather pay Richard Dawkins to travel the world than the pope.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on this assuming it is directed against Pope Benedict and not Catholics in general.....I have a question/food for thought...are you against the funding of Prince William's wedding in 2012 and are you against the funding of the 2012 Olympics in London? Now that is something to thing about......is this an economic issue or personal issue......otherwise great audioboo!
Now, in response to other parts of your podcast:
You discuss areas such as the church being stuck in the dark ages, having offensive beliefs, etc. The problem with this is that "offense" is a fairly subjective thing. While you take offense at their beliefs, Catholics are offended by ones that non-Catholics hold as well. It's an equal trade off, and thus neither can be called right, objectively. Subjectively you can, and each side fully believes it is right, and there you are, stuck right back at the beginning of the argument.
So basically, one can be angry that they condemn certain lifestyles, but that person is doing the same thing - condemning a lifestyle with which he or she doesn't agree.
I want to say that while there are a lot of things Christianity fundamentally considers immoral, Christians (I'm a Christian, I'm sure you already gathered, though not Catholic) are called to love everyone. We're not called to say every lifestyle is totally OK, or suddenly change our beliefs because they are not popular, but we are supposed to treat everyone with love, kindness, compassion, etc. Obviously this doesn't happen a whole lot of the time, and I've met some of the most obnoxious pricks out there who call themselves Christians, but the religion itself is not supposed to be that way, so don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
All parties need to respect each other as people, and give them the treatment they expect and would like for themselves. Yes, the beliefs do not coincide, and both need to accept that, and accept that not everyone is going to believe the same things in life, and there's simply no helping that. Yet if we can value each others' worth as humans, then neither side should be forcefully ramming their beliefs down the others' throats.
Well anyhow, despite the fact that this post has had a lot of disagreement to your points in it, I want to say I am a HUGE fan. I think you are absolutely brilliant, and your podcasts thought-provoking and relevant. Your efforts towards charity are also amazing. I watched and donated during Stickaid, and you were completely hilarious. Oh, and you're hot. Bravo for being hot, brilliant, and funny. You are made of awesome.
You do realise that the Pope took the name 'with the large number' when he became the Pope. He didn't actually have it as a kid. And the Pope shouldn't be judged like a politician, I am gay but I'd be horribly disappointed if he was too afraid to say how he interpreted the Bible and unfortunately there is the argument that 'God doesn't change with the times'.
My beliefs aren't in line with Christianity these days, I guess I am sorta polythiestic ignostic. I mean in an infinitely vast universe held itself within an infinitely vast multiverse there are bound to be numerous 'powers-that-be' right?
I'm not British, but if the pope would come to visit the Netherlands (where I live) I'd be angry if we had to pay for it. I'm an atheist and I believe he should do whatever he believes in, but not with the money of the taxpayers! If I want to go somewhere I gotta save up money myself as well! You might ask; and what about the queen then? Well she's practically employed by us, isn't she? And so is the government. If they have to go somewhere for business, we have to pay for it, as our employers should pay us in the same situation. But the pope, I don't employ him. He's employed by the religious people, so people who want to employ him should give him money for these trips, not us. I would rather pay Richard Dawkins to travel the world than the pope.