This article won't highlight the plastic, capitalist Easter that you and I have been trained to know, nor will it showcase a giant rabbit or any other silly symbol of Easter. What this editorial will do is ponder what it would be like if Jesus Christ returned to Earth for Easter.


Related Links:
The RIAA And Christianity, What's The Difference?
AdBrite Ad Here



Comments

These comments in RSS.
Comment View Threshold:
NobleAtreides, on 4/17/2006 5:10:42 AM
Total Posts: 148, Joined: 12/2/2005
I'd sell his picture on ebay for big retirement funds.
 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
avatar
SolsticeZero, on 4/17/2006 7:54:48 AM
Total Posts: 16, Joined: 1/19/2006
I really hate jumping on this late in the forums, but this must be said. Scienott, my good man, I commend you. This articel says everything I've had to say over the past few years of the president's "regime."

Bravo, good sir, bravo.
 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
RockmanRotties, on 4/17/2006 9:59:18 AM
Total Posts: 146, Joined: 11/15/2005
HAHA..easter is false!
 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
avatar
Ulrike, on 4/17/2006 10:43:48 AM
Total Posts: 97, Joined: 11/12/2005
I can't help but think "WINE AND CHEESE" when I read these articles. I think i'm hungry.
 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
TheLegace, on 4/17/2006 10:57:13 AM
Total Posts: 36, Joined: 1/2/2006
Scienott, you're an amazing speaker, i think ur a prophet of God, honestly, although im not Christian (hindu) i totally can see the corruption of Christianity(not that Hinduism is perfect), but honestly you really are amazing, you have opened my eyes and im gonna print this article for its sheer greatness.
 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
avatar
Scienott, on 4/17/2006 1:14:46 PM
Total Posts: 554, Joined: 11/5/2005
rosscosjunk: That was the most unintelligent comment in the history of SW comments.

Not only was it unintelligent, but it was ignorant and just plain hateful for no good reason.
Prepare to be banned if you keep that garbage up.

And Scuzzle, I'll reply to who I want. Don't tell me what to do.
More than half the reason my editorials are here is so I can discuss them.
 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
avatar
syf, on 4/17/2006 2:02:24 PM
Total Posts: 6, Joined: 4/2/2006
You should do some research on the previous pope before judging him.
 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
avatar
Scienott, on 4/17/2006 4:02:36 PM
Total Posts: 555, Joined: 11/5/2005
The basic fibres of tradition that any Pope must follow are corrupt enough to call every Pope corrupt.

John Paul II spread false rumours that condoms are ineffective, in which I know almost all catholics don't believe in condoms, basically promoting births that can't be controlled in third world countries, as well as AIDS. Conveniently, JP II was a part of charities which could only be obtained by third world countries if the people converted to Catholic. This is considered deception and can be considered immoral.

There is a clear difference between promoting religion and common sense/education.

If you are a leader and don't support common sense, regardless of tradition, you are selfish and radical.

John Paul II's response to sex scandals within the church were slow and ignorant - he basically gave the impression that he never gave a shit and that it just simply happens.

He also tried to recentralize power back to the Vatican, after Pope John XXIII decentralized it.

Obviously there is much room for catholic criticism among modernization, but even Catholics themselves had beefs with him that can be researched - they're too nitty gritty to bother getting into though. I'll note the IPPC (International Peace Prayer Conference) he held in 86 and 02 where he justified "false religions". He even kissed the Quran in one of his travels (Syria), probably to avoid getting killed.

Though I see some of that as a good thing, he chose to rebel and compromise only certain things - he was not consistent with what he stood for. He tolerated other religions, which upset a lot of traditionalists, but at the same time rejected the principle of religious liberty as being liberal. He couldn't tolerate many other liberal ideas that actually mattered in today's society, like homosexuality and condom use. All I'm saying is that if he wanted to be rebellious, he should have went all the way, instead of just using his random personal beliefs to alter where the Vatican stood at the time he is was in power.

I already mentioned how he used social programs (charity) to convert people to Catholics in third world countries. He created ample criticism in the third world when he said a great harvest of faith would be witnessed throughout certain parts of the eastern world.

There were several assasination attempts and he, in a way, played God by using a bulletproof vehicle (the pope-mobile) to get around. If he believed so much in himself, he should have been ready to die for what he believed in (although it's hard to say what that was, since his beliefs were all over the place and could be described only with contradictions).

He made many mistakes, a lot of which he did apologize for, but this is all just the tip of the iceberg really.

I'm not saying it's all John Paul II's fault. I'm saying that the position of the Pope (no matter who is subject to it) is corrupt either way and what comes with that will inevitably breed corruption in the modern world.
 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
WhiteIce89, on 4/17/2006 4:59:03 PM
Total Posts: 15, Joined: 1/24/2006
"Conveniently, JP II was a part of charities which could only be obtained by third world countries if the people converted to Catholic. This is considered deception and can be considered immoral."

One of the principles of Christianity is to spread the faith.

"There were several assasination attempts and he, in a way, played God by using a bulletproof vehicle (the pope-mobile) to get around. If he believed so much in himself, he should have been ready to die for what he believed in (although it's hard to say what that was, since his beliefs were all over the place and could be described only with contradictions)."

This makes me remember a passage from the Bible in which the devil challenges Jesus to jump off a cliff if he is truly the son of God, because his Father would save him anyway. If the Pope is playing God, then you're playing the Devil. It's not just about the Pope, it's about the people who follow him. I'm not sure Catholics would like to see Popes getting shot every month.

Christianity has always been about tradition. I cannot say I am a conservative, but at the same time, I cannot say I support the Church's willingness to change. The Church is often challenged as hypocritical and inconsistent. You make it sound like the Pope alone is responsible for this. The Pope himself doesn't hold much authoritative power. The problem lies not with the Pope, but with everyone else. In such a large faith, there will always be inconsistent ideals and etc. That's why we have a two-party system in the US. Then there's bishops and archbishops who we might call the "state" governments. The Pope is far from a tyrant.
 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
avatar
Scienott, on 4/17/2006 5:05:37 PM
Total Posts: 556, Joined: 11/5/2005
You can spread faith without being deceitful in third world countries. That's like getting sex from downsyndrome people. You should first spread common sense and education (something a lot of those poor third world people don't have).

As for the assassinations, I still think dying for what you believe in makes a strong statement.

"You make it sound like the Pope alone is responsible for this."

Oh really? I thought my conclusion said otherwise. I'll repost it for you:

"I'm not saying it's all John Paul II's fault. I'm saying that the position of the Pope (no matter who is subject to it) is corrupt either way and what comes with that will inevitably breed corruption in the modern world."

In other words, it's NOT the Popes' fault at all - it's the way in which the Vatican works that is to blame, in which it corrupts Popes. The Popes are representatives and if they support slave trade, Hitler's Nazi Germany, or anything obviously not sound with what they represent, then they are indeed tyrants.
 |  Comment Score: Neutral  |  Edit Comment
Comments per page: 10

Post your comments

 

Your Message:

This system allows you to use html-like tags in replacement of HTML. These tags are easier to use and are widely supported on messageboard systems.

HTML DISABLED
CODE DISABLED

 

You must be a registered user in order to post comments.
Please sign in or create a new account.

Your Ad Here
Xxoozero
bulshoy
Dock
ThisisJeff
LifeRiot
Romanov
Shoutwire channels