yahwehyadayada

abe smith

A-course, Vatican City is not "in" Ittly. (Only surrounded by it.) But if the Pooope is so anxious to make more Italians {Is his true purpose to make more CATHOLICS?), he could leap over the wall, for an hour or two at a time and impregnate some Italian babes..... Think he gets it up for females? Probably not, or at least not at his age.
That elderly person! ( a euphemism for *-----*) His population quandary just goes to prove that he/ his sect have lost the ballgame already. TOOOOO BAAAAAAAAAAAAAD! Don't the Italian birth-rate data make y' feel good? Just about the World's *lowest*.

sullster

The population of Africa, Asia and South America are continuing to rise and the pope knows that there are plenty of catholics in these continents. Perhaps he wants to assure that in the future the catholic church will continue to be run by Europeans rather than Africans or Asians. If the population of European catholics diminishes, then the power of the church will move into the Southern hemisphere.

I read once that there is a copy of Saint Peter's Basillica somewhere in Africa. The religion may end up being centered there someday.

The pope likes having all those non-European converts to swell his "soul numbers", but maybe he wants Italians still running the show. Also, what chance is there of another Polish pope? Better an Italian than some African.

Bible Humper

Hmm, I remember reading that he actually wants the opposite, that he has been stacking the upper echelons with non-europeans because they tend to be more conservative. The progressives within the Catholic church apparently aren't exactly ecstatic about the current Pontiff's resistance to modernisation, so he is stacking the deck to his faction's benefit in the hopes that they can keep the church from liberalising after he keels over.

[ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: Bible Humper ]</p>

Mike Rosoft

Yes. Insert a statement that European Union is based on Christianity to its constitution, and prevent Turkey from joining. And prevent Czech Republic from joining, because its over 50% non-religious.

Seriously, I challenge anybody to tell me in what way is modern democracy based on Christianity.


Mike Rosoft

lpetrich

Over in RRP, a certain Ed has made exactly this claim in the later pages of the threads "Ed's little difficulty" and "Ed: Flawed naturalism". He claims that the US Constitution is derived from the Bible, and he waves away counterevidence like that Constitution's writers' interest in Greco-Roman authors like Polybius. He has also refused to try to find out where the term "Senate" comes from.

Here is his evidence for the Bible supporting elected leaders: Acts 6:3 "Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them" (NIV)

However, none of the rest of the Bible supports representative government or legislatures or an independent judiciary or jury trials; for the most part, the Bible features only two forms of government: absolute monarchy and theocracy. Something like Saudi Arabia and Iran. There is no trace in the Bible of the social-contract theory, the theory that government owes its authority to "we, the people" (the first three words of the US Constitution).

When pressed about specific details, Ed retreats into vague generalities about "Judeo-Christian principles". And fails to consider the pagan roots of many of our governmental forms.

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

NOGO

Acts 6:3 "Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them" (NIV)


If my memory is good they are talking about the distribution of food and other daily necessities. These seven men are not elected leaders they were chosen to do a very mundane task.

The number of men and the task gives us an idea of the size of the community. There is no indication how this choice was to be made (secret ballot etc.) Also there is no indication that the leaders themselves were selected in the same way.

In short this is a small insignificant and isolated example in a small community.

What is really interesting is the fact that up everyone joining the community was obliged to give all their possessions to the leaders for distribution. That is what the seven had to distribute. This is communism not democracy.

At one point in time a couple joined the group but failed to give all that they had. They kept some of it for themselves. They were killed by God. Why? Because the had kept part of what belonged to them. Communism not democracy.

lpetrich

Yes, Ananias and Sapphira had been pesky kulaks who had refused to collectivize all their property, as their Dear Leader, Peter, had demanded.