New Pope about to come out

by new22day 303 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  FlyingHighNow

  I recognise that many individual catholics and Jehovahs Witnesses are good PEOPLE...but BOTH organisations are corrupt...and if their organisations are

  corrupt...so are their leaders.

  It is Jehovah's Witnesses who require that a religious organization be perfect and adhere to their interpretation of the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses uphold a standard of perfection for church leaders and the churches they lead.

  A human organization of any size will have some level of corruption. No one is arguing here that the Roman Catholic church doesn't have some corruption in it. As for comparing the governing body of JWs, clearly a mind control cult, to the modern Roman Catholic Church, the governing body comes up much worse in the measure.

  Roman Catholics generally have the freedom to adhere to Vatican policy or not. They celebrate holidays, go to parties, make friendships with neighbors, colleagues, school mates, etc. They drink, they say the pledge to the flag, they engage in extra curricular activities.They don't refuse medical treatments or blood transfusions. So, to repeat, the governing body comes up much worse in a side by side comparison. As I've pointed out and has been further discussed, there are many organizations and companies who deal badly with sex crimes, including the US military branches and police departments in many cities. WTBTS to this day, pretends that sex crimes don't happen in their org.

  I don't expect anyone to share my personal views and standards for the RCC or any other church or secular organization. As long as you have people, you will have some level of corruption, even if its as small as sneaking home the company office supplies and trying to cheat the time clock.
• 

  new22day

  And one thing about Christopher Hitchens, he hates Mother Theresa but he also denied the Holocaust. I don't consider him a credible source, as much as a journalist with an agenda. He hated all religion - esp. Catholicism.

  There's a lot more to the Mother T story than what as shared but some of the criticism is valid. However, it's nonsensical to compare the quality provided at her hospices to Western Hospital standards.

  (And these Western male doctors who criticized the nuns sure didn't stay too long in the slums to offer their expertise and make things better, did they?) It's easy to critcize, harder to put your $ where your mouth is.
• 

  new22day

  @ Flying High Now --- "So, to repeat, the governing body comes up much worse in a side by side comparison."

  I agree with you. It's a bit like apples to elephants but in today's era if I had to take the lesser of two evils (and I'm so not interested in either) I'd choose the Catholics over JWs anyday.
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  When Cristina Fernandez openly split from the church and Bergoglio personally regarding gay marriage and adoption, there was no suggestion that she should be excommunicated or restricted from receiving communion. She even accused him of having a 'medieval' tone. I can't imagine anyone publicly disagreeing with the Governing Body, much less personally criticising and mocking the position of a particular GB member and not being disfellowshipped on the spot and banned from the KH.
• 

  still thinking

  One thing, the RCC, unlike the JWs, is a choice. People can freely leave (many are) and they can disagree with policy and practice and doctrine. It's no big whoop.

  Yes..I see that as a positive too.

  A vast improvement from when they used to torture men, women and children for disagreeing with them. And burn people for being witches. Many lives have been lost to achieve that freedom from the church.
• 

  still thinking

  new22day...I think you need to get your facts a bit straighter when it comes to your claim the Christopher hitchens denied the holocaust. He was an advocate for freedom of speech and did not believe we would acheive a proper education about the holocaust by silencing people about it. Including the deniers.

  There is a vast difference between 'being a holocaust denier' and supporting their right to free speach.

  Scholars have pointed out that countries that specifically ban Holocaust denial generally have legal systems that limit speech in other ways, such as banning hate speech. According to D. Guttenplan, this is a split between the "common law countries of the United States, Ireland and many British Commonwealth countries from the civil law countries of continental Europe and Scotland. In civil law countries the law is generally more proscriptive. Also, under the civil law regime, the judge acts more as an inquisitor, gathering and presenting evidence as well as interpreting it". [2] Michael Whine argues that Holocaust denial can inspire violence against Jews; he states, "Jews' experience in the post-World War II era suggests that their rights are best protected in open and tolerant democracies that actively prosecute all forms of racial and religious hatred." [3]

  János Kis [4] and TASZ, [5] in particular András Schiffer [6] feel the work of Holocaust deniers should be protected by a universal right to free speech. An identical argument was used [7] by the Hungarian Constitutional Court (Alkotmánybíróság) led by László Sólyom when it struck down a law against Holocaust denial in 1992. The argument that laws punishing Holocaust denial are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been rejected by institutions of theCouncil of Europe (the European Commission of Human Rights, [8] the European Court of Human Rights [9] ) and also by the United Nations Human Rights Committee. [10]

  Historians who oppose such laws include Raul Hilberg, [11] Richard J. Evans, and Pierre Vidal-Naquet. Other prominent opponents of the laws are Timothy Garton Ash, [12] Christopher Hitchens, Peter Singer, [13] and Noam Chomsky. [14] An uproar resulted when Serge Thion used one of Chomsky's essays without explicit permission as a foreword to a book of Holocaust denial essays (see Faurisson affair).

  These laws have also been criticized on the grounds that education is more effective than legislation at combating Holocaust denial and that the laws will make martyrs out of those imprisoned for their violation. [15]

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
• 

  still thinking

  He hated all religion - esp. Catholicism.

  Actually....if you read his work. I would put Islam at the top of his list if I were to make a claim that he hated any particular religion.

  And saying he hated all religion is untrue. He was quite different from a number of atheists out there that think all religion is harmful. He felt there was a place for religion and that we would always have it in one form or another. (there is a talk online where he and Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet and Sam Harris are addressing exactly that issue). They disagreed with him.

  He simply states that faith is all delusional. But enjoyed some of the religious aspects of it, just as we enjoy the history of greek mythology. It adds to our culture.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  A vast improvement from when they used to torture men, women and children for disagreeing with them. And burn people for being witches. Many lives

  have been lost to achieve that freedom from the church.

  If you look at those times in history, the government and society was rife with this kind of thing, it was the church, it was those governing. Human rights have come a long way, in some places.

  Today, on the other hand, we have countries where religion has been banned, but the citizens of those countries have much less freedom than we have here in the USA. Think about China and North Korea. In those two countries, you only get to blame the secular government for the abuse of basic freedoms and human rights.

  At the time the RC was doing its worst abuse to human rights, they were intertwined with government, who often used to the church or bible for an excuse to murder innocent people and to wage war.
• 

  still thinking

  So, to repeat, the governing body comes up much worse in a side by side comparison.

  Compare the history of the Governing body...with the history of the Catholic church..and I doubt they will come off worse.

  And still today....

  The catholic church & the GB promote women being second class citizens.

  The catholic church & the GB cover up child molesting (fortunately people have fought them both and continue to do so)

  The catholic church & the GB promote hatred of homosexuals

  You know, I'm all for looking at the good in people. But neither of those organisations deserve any respect for their backward thinking. Both claim to be lead by a god...both fall short of being humane.
• 

  still thinking

  Today, on the other hand, we have countries where religion has been banned, but the citizens of those countries have much less freedom than we have here in the USA. Think about China and North Korea. In those two countries, you only get to blame the secular government for the abuse of basic freedoms and human rights.

  I agree...Dictators are not a good thing either...and are no better than the type of religious control found in Islamic countries. I don't think religion should be banned anywhere. That takes away peoples rights.

  You also have other secular countries like Denmark who put religious countries to shame with their peaceful, progressive, humanistic attitudes. They have not banned religion and encourage freedom of speech.

  A secular country does not have to be a dictatorship...they are two different things...dictators can be secular or religious. In fact, doesn't the leader in North Korea claim to be a god?