Papa Francisco: The Best Argentinian Ever?
- Thread starter Brunette36
- Start date
ariel81
Registered
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2014
- Messages
- 431
- Likes
- 199
changed law,since 1994
This is an outright lie. The staples of Aztec diet were probably starch.
Human offal was probably just a sacred delicacy, much like crappy sushi is in Buenos Aires
ariel81
Registered
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2014
- Messages
- 431
- Likes
- 199
Aztec sacrificed thousands of men to eat in the ceremonies,im a bachelor in latin american studies,I know.
ariel81
Registered
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2014
- Messages
- 431
- Likes
- 199
Menem converted,kris,has jewish origins,she is not herself jewish
How was the meat prepared? Should we move this conversation to the food section?
Wow somehow I missed this entire thread. Heh.
Matias: In my opinion one shouldn't denigrate one person because the institution to which he belongs has had problems historically and the institution itself has many problems to this day. I don't really know much about Pope Francis, but he seems to be quite a bit different from many in the past. Organizations that have gone bad do, at times, have reformers, and perhaps he is one of them. I've known some good Catholic clergy, there are some good people in the church, even though the church (or, in my opinion, any church) has a lot of problems and often lead people astray. I've been to the Vatican and seen their palace, with a souvenir shop on the roof near the Cupola - I know what you mean. At the same time, I've seen Catholic priests living among some of the most abject poverty in the world trying to help people who are truly lost in this world (and I don't mean their souls).
Matt: The Church certainly was a force in the Dark Ages for stability, but I'm not so sure, personally, that the stability it brought was a good one. It helped to continue to perpetrate a lot of superstition and cruelty, and seemed to help more those in power, to keep those under their thumb in place, preaching "don't worry, the next life will be better, take your lot in this life because God never gives you anything you can't handle and when it's all over, if you were a good little peon you'll get your reward then." I wonder how many of those good peons actually found an eternal reward...
To me, saying that the Church helped to maintain order in Europe is like saying FDR's programs in the 30s helped to get the US out of the Great Depression, whereas some think that he actually helped to prolong it.
Ariel: I'm sure I don't know nearly as much as you do about Aztec and Mayan civilizations, having never studied them beyond courses in school and occasional readings of interest. But I was under the understanding that the cannibalism had to do with religious rites, not like all Aztecs got together and ate their fellow countrymen or slaves, but that the priests did so for their religious reasons. There were certainly a lot of human sacrifices, but how many of those ended up as being a feast for the entire population, or even the priests themselves?
And even if it was, normally, ritualistic cannibalism takes place in order for the consumer to take on an aspect of the person being consumed. I find this similar to the Eucharist practiced in the Catholic Church. I'm not saying that the Catholic Church practices cannibalism, but is it not a similar goal? For all I know, they simply liked human flesh, but it seems to me more like religion gone out of control.
And keep in mind that during the time that Cortés was wiping out the Aztecs, the church was in the middle of its Inquisition, the Spanish form of which was actually quite brutal. To me, the thought of eating human flesh is quite disgusting. But I find it little more repugnant than killing people in the act of trying to cleanse their souls and letting god sort out the true heretics.
And what about the other civilizations that existed here? Just because some of them were backward, doesn't seem like a good reason for the Church to come in and tear everything apart even if ostensibly to "save their souls". If that's the case then maybe the US was justified in wiping out the natives in North America as well, although not for religious reasons, but they did, after all, bring "civilization".
==========================
I'm not a big fan of the Catholic Church. But then, I'm not a fan of any church that purports to have the only path to spiritualism and "salvation" (although yeah, at least among official "Christendom" that has let up quite a bit. That's as far as I'll go here for my reasons). I think the entire concept of an afterlife comes from ancient times, in an effort to appease people who were afraid of dying and can't understand what a universe without them means (and most religions on this Earth don't have anything to say about where we were before, and the universe certainly got along without us prior to that). Historically, religions have almost all been used to control "the people" and either be the power itself, or hold up those who were in power in a symbiotic relationship.
I'd love to see someone come into the Catholic Church and make another run at big reforms. After all, with the infallability of the pope as Church law since the late 1800s, maybe Pope Francis can do things like allow priests to marry and have somewhat normal lives since they are, after all, only men and not holy unto themselves. Yes, I know it is possible that some priests can be married, but they are relatively few and far between (has to do with converting from the Episcopal Church), and as I understand it they are supposed to take the vow of celibacy but don't necessarily do so.
Which reminds me, when are women going to be allowed to be consecrated as priests?
I guess at that point the Church would cease to be as Catholic as it once was...according to the Church as i understand, it is impossible to grant the Church power to consecrate a woman as a priest due to scripture. If the pope tried that, would he be ousted in some fashion as being the devil in reality? Or is he infallible and it's time for a modern adjustment to the scriptures?
Matias: In my opinion one shouldn't denigrate one person because the institution to which he belongs has had problems historically and the institution itself has many problems to this day. I don't really know much about Pope Francis, but he seems to be quite a bit different from many in the past. Organizations that have gone bad do, at times, have reformers, and perhaps he is one of them. I've known some good Catholic clergy, there are some good people in the church, even though the church (or, in my opinion, any church) has a lot of problems and often lead people astray. I've been to the Vatican and seen their palace, with a souvenir shop on the roof near the Cupola - I know what you mean. At the same time, I've seen Catholic priests living among some of the most abject poverty in the world trying to help people who are truly lost in this world (and I don't mean their souls).
Matt: The Church certainly was a force in the Dark Ages for stability, but I'm not so sure, personally, that the stability it brought was a good one. It helped to continue to perpetrate a lot of superstition and cruelty, and seemed to help more those in power, to keep those under their thumb in place, preaching "don't worry, the next life will be better, take your lot in this life because God never gives you anything you can't handle and when it's all over, if you were a good little peon you'll get your reward then." I wonder how many of those good peons actually found an eternal reward...
To me, saying that the Church helped to maintain order in Europe is like saying FDR's programs in the 30s helped to get the US out of the Great Depression, whereas some think that he actually helped to prolong it.
Ariel: I'm sure I don't know nearly as much as you do about Aztec and Mayan civilizations, having never studied them beyond courses in school and occasional readings of interest. But I was under the understanding that the cannibalism had to do with religious rites, not like all Aztecs got together and ate their fellow countrymen or slaves, but that the priests did so for their religious reasons. There were certainly a lot of human sacrifices, but how many of those ended up as being a feast for the entire population, or even the priests themselves?
And even if it was, normally, ritualistic cannibalism takes place in order for the consumer to take on an aspect of the person being consumed. I find this similar to the Eucharist practiced in the Catholic Church. I'm not saying that the Catholic Church practices cannibalism, but is it not a similar goal? For all I know, they simply liked human flesh, but it seems to me more like religion gone out of control.
And keep in mind that during the time that Cortés was wiping out the Aztecs, the church was in the middle of its Inquisition, the Spanish form of which was actually quite brutal. To me, the thought of eating human flesh is quite disgusting. But I find it little more repugnant than killing people in the act of trying to cleanse their souls and letting god sort out the true heretics.
And what about the other civilizations that existed here? Just because some of them were backward, doesn't seem like a good reason for the Church to come in and tear everything apart even if ostensibly to "save their souls". If that's the case then maybe the US was justified in wiping out the natives in North America as well, although not for religious reasons, but they did, after all, bring "civilization".
==========================
I'm not a big fan of the Catholic Church. But then, I'm not a fan of any church that purports to have the only path to spiritualism and "salvation" (although yeah, at least among official "Christendom" that has let up quite a bit. That's as far as I'll go here for my reasons). I think the entire concept of an afterlife comes from ancient times, in an effort to appease people who were afraid of dying and can't understand what a universe without them means (and most religions on this Earth don't have anything to say about where we were before, and the universe certainly got along without us prior to that). Historically, religions have almost all been used to control "the people" and either be the power itself, or hold up those who were in power in a symbiotic relationship.
I'd love to see someone come into the Catholic Church and make another run at big reforms. After all, with the infallability of the pope as Church law since the late 1800s, maybe Pope Francis can do things like allow priests to marry and have somewhat normal lives since they are, after all, only men and not holy unto themselves. Yes, I know it is possible that some priests can be married, but they are relatively few and far between (has to do with converting from the Episcopal Church), and as I understand it they are supposed to take the vow of celibacy but don't necessarily do so.
Which reminds me, when are women going to be allowed to be consecrated as priests?
I guess at that point the Church would cease to be as Catholic as it once was...according to the Church as i understand, it is impossible to grant the Church power to consecrate a woman as a priest due to scripture. If the pope tried that, would he be ousted in some fashion as being the devil in reality? Or is he infallible and it's time for a modern adjustment to the scriptures?Thank you for your input, I really appreciate it and even though I (no longer) agree with a thing you say in this particular post, I value your comments in general a lot.
I come from a long non religious family of diverse origins, and I was raised in a very straight-forward manner as an atheist. God belonged to the past and when compared to philosophy it was presented to me, as well as any church or rite, as a iatrogenic witch doctor compared to scientific medicine. Alchemy to Chemistry. The fact that Chemistry was only possible thanks to long experimentation with Alchemy, was not made apparent to me, and I had to discover that link myself much later. In the same manner I had to discover that Modern Medicine developed to its level only thanks of centuries incremental experimentation with iatrogenic cures, and that in many ways, it is still iatrogenic and patients are still subject to extensive experimentation (at their own cost in many cases).
So it's conflictive to try to "take" or at least recognize the good with the bad. Ein Rhand (I'm so sorry I have to obscure her name so this post doesn't go through moderation) would have nothing of it as she preached to separate the medicine from the poison, but a quick glance at her biography (or at her explicit view of cigarettes and alcohol) reminds us of the dichotomy between "what the preacher says, not what the preacher does". So I try to be fair and balanced, and compare things and entities not only against their hypothetical competitors but also against the void that would be left without them, or if those things were changed beyond recognition.
I used to think the way you seem to think about the Roman Catholic Church and authority in general when I was 11, 12, and into my early pubescence, but then by 14/15 I realized that every time one tries to put down some-thing for their imperfections one also has to measure up that against the possibility of a void. It was the 90s and hippie rebellion to authority was very pasee, we were all skeptical, not just of power, but also of its (at best) fruitless defiance.
You compare FDRs Welfare State with Catholicism and you're not wrong: Corporativism as well mercantilism is the historically favoured economic system of the church, although that is certainly not dogma. It seems very destructive now that we have all this technological opportunities going around, but for the last couple millenia it served us quiet nicely to survive and indeed thrive. After a free market democracy (LOL, that sounds so stupid and incongruent) thrives for more than 200 years, we can talk. The Church thinks in millenia, not in decades. That is their value. They are the only ones thinking in the long term. They are incidentally the only institution that does not discriminate against old people, which will be something of increasing rarity in the very near future.
You say that the Roman Catholic Church somehow impeded or slowed down the West's modernization? I strongly believe you might be confusing the Roman Church and Western Christianity in general (with all its Reformed offshoots) with East Orthodoxy.
If you were talking about Greek, Russian, or Nestorian Orthodox Christians I would very much agree with you, but would still defend it when compared to the historical alternatives.
During the Dark Ages the Roman Catholic church was the vehicle that preserved Roman culture. It also allowed for families to marry, have children, and have all of that be recorded so when the inevitability of death would come, the individual would have some redemption. In a time without mail or Facebook, or literacy, an international registry was of great personal value and consolation.
Before the French Revolution a last confession was considered the equivalent of a human right. It would take 200 years for a secular alternative (the very expensive psychoanalytical session) to arise and another century for Live Journal
During that time the ones who did not form families (for whatever reason in addition to the homosexuals, the widowed and the insane) had the extraordinary possibility (only otherwise seen as highly organized in the Bhuddist temples, which is in comparisson quiet a horrible collection of churches/monasteries for all the reasons you just mentioned in your post) to join the Priesthood and dedicate their lives to helping the poor, nursing the sick, exalting the very best of existence (they called it "God") in art and architecture, distilling spirits such as wine and beer, and many liquors, cultivating the land, cultivating the illiterate, expanding the "Good News", towards the tribalistic indigenous regions of Northern and Eastern Europe, and then the Americas and thus including those regions into the World network.
In the Americas the Catholic Church specifically in contrast to other Christians tried their best to include the indigenous population in a spirit of fraternal equality. The Jesuit and even Franciscan orders are a testament to that effort hindered by worldly politics.
Women who join the priesthood are called nuns (or sisters). Women have never been excluded from the Church of Rome. They exercise their power in a traditionally feminine way, behind the curtains, enjoying (if you permit it) lack of publicity. I am forced to point out that the last Polish Pope had a de-facto concubine, a sister. For all practical purposes a wife or spouse. But the Church doesn't want to call it that because the official spouse is JC, and you have no right to impose otherwise. Hypocrisy is not the worse sin.
Killing 12 people in cold blood because of a cartoon (or even if conspiracies are right because of politics) is the worse sin.
The Church has been gradually separating from the Worldly powers ( Ceasar different from God) in the last hundred years, and now can only be seen as a force for good and reconciliation, but also as the oldest uninterrupted entity of cultural transmission.
In such a time of exponentially faster change and Global Homogenization such an entity as the Roman Catholic Church has more than a rarity value.
I come from a long non religious family of diverse origins, and I was raised in a very straight-forward manner as an atheist. God belonged to the past and when compared to philosophy it was presented to me, as well as any church or rite, as a iatrogenic witch doctor compared to scientific medicine. Alchemy to Chemistry. The fact that Chemistry was only possible thanks to long experimentation with Alchemy, was not made apparent to me, and I had to discover that link myself much later. In the same manner I had to discover that Modern Medicine developed to its level only thanks of centuries incremental experimentation with iatrogenic cures, and that in many ways, it is still iatrogenic and patients are still subject to extensive experimentation (at their own cost in many cases).
So it's conflictive to try to "take" or at least recognize the good with the bad. Ein Rhand (I'm so sorry I have to obscure her name so this post doesn't go through moderation) would have nothing of it as she preached to separate the medicine from the poison, but a quick glance at her biography (or at her explicit view of cigarettes and alcohol) reminds us of the dichotomy between "what the preacher says, not what the preacher does". So I try to be fair and balanced, and compare things and entities not only against their hypothetical competitors but also against the void that would be left without them, or if those things were changed beyond recognition.
I used to think the way you seem to think about the Roman Catholic Church and authority in general when I was 11, 12, and into my early pubescence, but then by 14/15 I realized that every time one tries to put down some-thing for their imperfections one also has to measure up that against the possibility of a void. It was the 90s and hippie rebellion to authority was very pasee, we were all skeptical, not just of power, but also of its (at best) fruitless defiance.
You compare FDRs Welfare State with Catholicism and you're not wrong: Corporativism as well mercantilism is the historically favoured economic system of the church, although that is certainly not dogma. It seems very destructive now that we have all this technological opportunities going around, but for the last couple millenia it served us quiet nicely to survive and indeed thrive. After a free market democracy (LOL, that sounds so stupid and incongruent) thrives for more than 200 years, we can talk. The Church thinks in millenia, not in decades. That is their value. They are the only ones thinking in the long term. They are incidentally the only institution that does not discriminate against old people, which will be something of increasing rarity in the very near future.
You say that the Roman Catholic Church somehow impeded or slowed down the West's modernization? I strongly believe you might be confusing the Roman Church and Western Christianity in general (with all its Reformed offshoots) with East Orthodoxy.
If you were talking about Greek, Russian, or Nestorian Orthodox Christians I would very much agree with you, but would still defend it when compared to the historical alternatives.
During the Dark Ages the Roman Catholic church was the vehicle that preserved Roman culture. It also allowed for families to marry, have children, and have all of that be recorded so when the inevitability of death would come, the individual would have some redemption. In a time without mail or Facebook, or literacy, an international registry was of great personal value and consolation.
Before the French Revolution a last confession was considered the equivalent of a human right. It would take 200 years for a secular alternative (the very expensive psychoanalytical session) to arise and another century for Live Journal
During that time the ones who did not form families (for whatever reason in addition to the homosexuals, the widowed and the insane) had the extraordinary possibility (only otherwise seen as highly organized in the Bhuddist temples, which is in comparisson quiet a horrible collection of churches/monasteries for all the reasons you just mentioned in your post) to join the Priesthood and dedicate their lives to helping the poor, nursing the sick, exalting the very best of existence (they called it "God") in art and architecture, distilling spirits such as wine and beer, and many liquors, cultivating the land, cultivating the illiterate, expanding the "Good News", towards the tribalistic indigenous regions of Northern and Eastern Europe, and then the Americas and thus including those regions into the World network.
In the Americas the Catholic Church specifically in contrast to other Christians tried their best to include the indigenous population in a spirit of fraternal equality. The Jesuit and even Franciscan orders are a testament to that effort hindered by worldly politics.
I'd love to see someone come into the Catholic Church and make another run at big reforms. After all, with the infallability of the pope as Church law since the late 1800s, maybe Pope Francis can do things like allow priests to marry and have somewhat normal lives since they are, after all, only men and not holy unto themselves. Yes, I know it is possible that some priests can be married, but they are relatively few and far between (has to do with converting from the Episcopal Church), and as I understand it they are supposed to take the vow of celibacy but don't necessarily do so.
Which reminds me, when are women going to be allowed to be consecrated as priests?
Women who join the priesthood are called nuns (or sisters). Women have never been excluded from the Church of Rome. They exercise their power in a traditionally feminine way, behind the curtains, enjoying (if you permit it) lack of publicity. I am forced to point out that the last Polish Pope had a de-facto concubine, a sister. For all practical purposes a wife or spouse. But the Church doesn't want to call it that because the official spouse is JC, and you have no right to impose otherwise. Hypocrisy is not the worse sin.
Killing 12 people in cold blood because of a cartoon (or even if conspiracies are right because of politics) is the worse sin.
The Church has been gradually separating from the Worldly powers ( Ceasar different from God) in the last hundred years, and now can only be seen as a force for good and reconciliation, but also as the oldest uninterrupted entity of cultural transmission.
In such a time of exponentially faster change and Global Homogenization such an entity as the Roman Catholic Church has more than a rarity value.