jump to navigation

The Bratzinger Fallout October 1, 2006

Posted by benj in Philosophy & Religion.
trackback

In my past entry, I was very vague when it came to challenging christians to take a stand against Joseph Ratzinger’s obviously (mis)calculated bigotry that comes at the worst of times when religious and cultural lines are very much tense and volatile. As expected, people decided to go with the obvious – I was calling every single christian out there a bigot. I don’t know if it’s a matter of being defensive or just plain dense, but to me, I saw it a different way.

The roman catholic church is in essence, just like another organization. Even if you claim that it is more like a family, the fact that you could leave the congregation at any time makes membership a lot more fluid than in a traditional biological family. The head of this organization is of course, the pope – whose very existence in the hierarchy is based on a dubious and illogical interpretation of a single biblical passage about Peter. The pontiff is supposedly the extension of the christian god on earth. He enjoys practical infallibility and other privileges reserved to him alone. He is blindly adored and venerated by the catholic faithful by the millions and is seen as a strong media and political figure.

Affiliation is a choice. And for so long (read: hundreds of years), the roman catholic church has eroded itself with countless cases of molestation, corruption, inhumane practices, murder and even psychological trauma against their very own kith and kin. This recent incident involving Ratzinger just emphasizes how crude and unabashedly bigoted the church is – he after all is the HEAD of the organization.

The head of your church is a bigot. Do you stay with a ship steered by a bigot whose popularity is nowhere near his predecessor or does one jump to another alternative whose moral compass is more centered towards a non-hypocritical theological direction? The roman catholic church clearly is a two-faced, libelous mafia who eagerly intellectually trap the weak in conviction and grey matter. Most people stay within the church to simply belong and be in the majority depsite all the injustices done by the church (meddling in political affairs, putting a cap on comprehensive family planning policies etc.), and to what end?

I think what the roman catholic church offers is not something mutually exclusive to other sects of the christian denomination.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. gibbs cadiz - October 1, 2006

he may be a bigot, but he knows how to apologize. profusely. several times. that’s more than you can say of the heads of other religions. that’s not saying ratzinger didn’t err; it’s merely saying that his error is distinct from one’s personal decision to be, and to stay, a roman catholic.and by the way, he is not infallible in EVERY way, which is the implication of ‘practical infallibility.’ the papal claim to infallibility extends only to matters of doctrine, say, the Holy Trinity, the Immaculate Concepcion, etc., and not to something like the philosophical speech he delivered. (yes, it was a searching, complex piece, quite unlike the hateful one caricatured in papers.). again, he was insensitive, thoughtless and careless. but now he admits he was in error, and has repeatedly apologized. let him lick his wounds in peace.

2. benj - October 2, 2006

I honestly don’t think he did. He was very keen on not apologizing during the first few days and he just resorted to “regreting the reaction” that his comments have caused. what a weasel. haha

3. Sidney - October 3, 2006

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

Buddhist fable of the Blind Sages and the Elephant, found in the Udana, chapter 6, section 4

4. benj - October 3, 2006

Among the religions, I find Buddhism to be among the very few worth the trouble of capitalizing. It’s one of the non-theistic religions that champions the path rather than the fact that there once was a ‘hero’/ prophet.

And yup, those Buddhists’ claims are far less ridiculous than claims made by catholics.

5. cyberpunk - October 9, 2006

i agree…that’s why I converted to buddhism during my college years (a long time ago hehe)…

6. Akbar - November 9, 2006

I love buddhism but then again I won’t subsribe to one path. As a a saying would go;

If you see Buddha kill him.

But you completely misunderstood the reality of what Ratzinger was saying. The truth is, Islam is a violent religion and there is no denying that. The words of the apologist have drowned all the liberals to the point that its laughable. There is a plot out there by the Muslim Brotherhood to create a global caliphate. Its a frigthening thing. Global Jihad right now isn’t because of Palestine and such, its because of the Koran itself. The Brotherhood was created specifically to indocrtinate the world to christianity. Osama’s mentor Azzam had the goal to gain back all muslim lands egi Southern Spain, Philippines etc… But it later evolved(when Azzam was killed) to a plot to kill or convert or unbelievers/kafirs.

And lest you know in the Theocracy of Saudi Arabia no Church can be seen while in the bastion of Catholicism which is Rome, we have the biggest mosque in Europe. What kind of one sided multiculturalism is this?

“One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives and their “right hand possessions” (Quran 33:50) He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way. Muhammad was a narcissist like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified.”- Apostates of Islam.http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

As such how could Ratzinger be a bigot when his statement or his quoted statement was within reason. Islam is not a religion of peace, one of the biggest lies the ummah, the imams spout for their vile mouths.

I suggest that if you really are a crusader for freedom from faith then do not focus on one religion, really see whats going on in the world. Christianity maybe well our last defense against this vile religion.
=========

A quote from the Koran:

Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188:
Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun:”During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I SAW A SHE-MONKEY SURROUNDED BY A NUMBER OF MONKEYS. THEY WERE ALL STONING IT, BECAUSE IT HAD COMMITTED ILLEGAL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. I TOO, STONED IT ALONG WITH THEM.”
Would Jesus do that? Wow it really is NOT a violent religion and Constantine was VERY WRONG>? NOT!

So rather than criticizing the Pope and christianity do your homework about this impending threat.

7. benj - November 9, 2006

Yes, Islam is a violent religion. I will be the last person to argue that Islamism was founded on peace and living in harmony with the rest of the world.

The Islamic threat is always looming whether the Muslim moderates would concede it or not. So it’s not really in the best interest of the “non-violent” catholics of the world to have their leader insult the already violent muslims into going totally psycho.

I am not exposed to Islamism so I’m not exactly able to write in length about how BAD it really is. That being said, it was very irresponsible of him to further taunt and fan the flames.

They will all come for us – I believe you in that regard.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: