|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:59 pm
DaikonNairu -Ren- Captain_Shinzo His followers are saying that the Pope is being controlled by Satan. = That's bull. Isn't it true that Satan can't do anything without God's permission? (Is not Christian so does not know.) If the Pope is "being controlled by Satan" then its by God's own allowance. (This is, of course, following under the assumption that God and Satan even exist in the first place. )
However, I'm still trying to figure out why an Omnipotent and Omniscience god couldn't just waste Satan whenever.
Still, whatever keeps the Pope behind safe, in more ways than one.
Also,
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:02 pm
DaikonNairu -Ren- It was on 4chan somewhere. I can't seem to to find it anymore or else I'd post it for you. In any case, I did manage to find this one:  But I don't like it as much because that was actually Vader's line, not Palpatine's. But what do I know. I'm just an original trilogy buff and no one cares for the original trilogy anymore... stare "Luke Skywalker? Who the hell is Luke Skywalker?" Stupid brats don't know their history... Back on topic: As I said in my response to Shinzo-kun's post: Doesn't it say somewhere in Christian dogma that Satan can't really do anything without God's permission? Doesn't that render anything that Satan does part of "God's Will"?
I love the place, but prefer 420chan.
Anyway, I think the rule goes that Satan can't mess with God's creation's. However, Satan is a kickass lawyer and can send his demons. so, I guess the pope is possessed. That or he was replaced by a fake pope who is a demon. They are confusing people.
http://www.roses.org/directives/direct50.htm
http://www.tldm.org/VideoOnInternet/ImposterPope-Part1.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:05 pm
I think most of Gaia's population goes on 4chan.
Anyway, thanks for answering that for me. But I still could have sworn that I heard from a semi-reliable source that Satan nothing more than God's disobedient attack dog. *shrug*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:08 pm
Awesome pictures eek - Awww, you're not the only one that cares about the original trilogy. In my house the prequels don't exist, even if I do love Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor xd
On topic - So now they're pulling the old 'changeling' she-bang. Nice xd (The whole demon possession reminds me of the queen in the serpent war saga...freaky pantathians). I suppose people are willing to believe anything that will keep the pope clean and squeaky...though that does beg the question, where is the real pope? (anyone who says a galaxy far far away will be in trouble razz )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:11 pm
Did any of you hear the story of the Pope that turned out to be a woman? Apparently, they found out she was a woman because she gave birth in the middle of a parade. That must have been an embarrassing day for the Catholic Church.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:13 pm
I heard the one where they found out she was a she when they passed her over the cardinals, and they saw her distinct lack of a p***s.
Because women and castrati (or anyone with less than the full set of man-bits) can never be pope, they do the passing over of the cardinals to make sure they're still pope material.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:16 pm
I was under the impression that the Passing over to the Cardinals tradition was started because of the little unfortunate incident of the parade. *shrug* But stories do get embellished as they're passed around. I could have just heard a more exaggerated version of the same Pope's story. .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:59 pm
Captain_Shinzo However, I'm still trying to figure out why an Omnipotent and Omniscience god couldn't just waste Satan whenever. This section here might help here. Catechism on the FallThis is just an idea here. If we look at it from a symbolic proto-psychology point of view we might be able to figure out why Satan isn't just out right destroyed. First we should identify what this symbol of Satan, according to the teachings of the Church, is supposed to represent about ourselves. The Kingdom of Heaven is within us, so the teachings of the Church regarding cosmology is supposed to be a macrocosmic explanation for the microcosmic universe that is ourselves. We know from the teachings of the Church that Satan is supposed to be a divine being. So since he is a divine being, he is part of the kingdom of heaven, meaning a part of who we are fundamentally. What are some of the descriptions of Satan. We know he's proud, he's the father of lies, he's a creature, he's a beast. Based on these descriptions, Satan is possibly a symbol for who we are at a purely instinctual level. Man is quite literally an animal with all the basic drives any animal has. If this portion of us is Satan, then Satan cannot be destroyed and serves the purpose of testing us. We get impulses to do something, do we just act on those impulses, or should we test those impulses. Instincts can lie to us, much as Satan does. Evidence of this is those in a panic state. Not being Catholic and not being familiar enough with Catholic teachings on Satan, I'm just kinda throwing an idea out there that might or might not be plausible. While Gnostic Christianity does have some correlation with Traditional Christianity, the symbolism can get quite different so there is the possibility that I might be throwing some of my Gnostic views into my interpretation of the archetype of Satan unintentionally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:10 pm
rmcdra Captain_Shinzo However, I'm still trying to figure out why an Omnipotent and Omniscience god couldn't just waste Satan whenever. This section here might help here. Catechism on the FallThis is just an idea here. If we look at it from a symbolic proto-psychology point of view we might be able to figure out why Satan isn't just out right destroyed. First we should identify what this symbol of Satan, according to the teachings of the Church, is supposed to represent about ourselves. The Kingdom of Heaven is within us, so the teachings of the Church regarding cosmology is supposed to be a macrocosmic explanation for the microcosmic universe that is ourselves. We know from the teachings of the Church that Satan is supposed to be a divine being. So since he is a divine being, he is part of the kingdom of heaven, meaning a part of who we are fundamentally. What are some of the descriptions of Satan. We know he's proud, he's the father of lies, he's a creature, he's a beast. Based on these descriptions, Satan is possibly a symbol for who we are at a purely instinctual level. Man is quite literally an animal with all the basic drives any animal has. If this portion of us is Satan, then Satan cannot be destroyed and serves the purpose of testing us. We get impulses to do something, do we just act on those impulses, or should we test those impulses. Instincts can lie to us, much as Satan does. Evidence of this is those in a panic state. Not being Catholic and not being familiar enough with Catholic teachings on Satan, I'm just kinda throwing an idea out there that might or might not be plausible. While Gnostic Christianity does have some correlation with Traditional Christianity, the symbolism can get quite different so there is the possibility that I might be throwing some of my Gnostic views into my interpretation of the archetype of Satan unintentionally.
1. Satan is not a deity, but a symbolic view of humanities faults. He does not exist.
2. Satan does exist but also in a omnipresent-like power.
If we go with 1, Satan would not needed to be destroyed. He doesn't exist.
If we go with 2, there could be some problems with the theology. Not to mention there is also the part where Omnipotence gives you the right to do anything possible, even removing symbols. If Satan is at all existent, God has the power to remove him.
Pretty much, in short, if Satan exists than he can be destroyed. If he doesn't, he doesn't need to be destroyed because he isn't here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:16 pm
Captain_Shinzo Well, there are two ways to look at it.
1. Satan is not a deity, but a symbolic view of humanities faults. He does not exist.
2. Satan does exist but also in a omnipresent-like power.
If we go with 1, Satan would not needed to be destroyed. He doesn't exist.
If we go with 2, there could be some problems with the theology. Not to mention there is also the part where Omnipotence gives you the right to do anything possible, even removing symbols. If Satan is at all existent, God has the power to remove him.
Pretty much, in short, if Satan exists than he can be destroyed. If he doesn't, he doesn't need to be destroyed because he isn't here. You do realize I wasn't trying to argue for or against Satan's existence confused ? I was merely speculating at how this view regarding Satan could have developed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:30 pm
rmcdra You do realize I wasn't trying to argue for or against Satan's existence confused ? I think Shinzo-kun was just stating her interpretations of the text. I don't think she was particularly looking to argue either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:42 pm
DaikonNairu -Ren- rmcdra You do realize I wasn't trying to argue for or against Satan's existence confused ? I think Shinzo-kun was just stating her interpretations of the text. I don't think she was particularly looking to argue either. Ah okay I must have misread something. Exhaustion must be finally kicking in (only had about 4-5 of sleep today).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:39 pm
The pope being possessed? Who claimed that? The pope is supposed to be the grand leader of the religion. I can see the appeal in possessing him, but after everything he went through to earn his title, he should be immune to that sort of thing.
I think the Pope should stand trial. Confessional is a good thing. Logically it's safer to avoid trial because he's the Pope, he can't lie while under oath. Although, religious leaders shouldn't have things to hide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 3:53 pm
The pope shouldn't stand trial in the situations he didn't know about, but with any that he had knowledge of he should definitely be charged. He could provided testimony if nothing else and at least acknowledge what's happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
