Do You Agree: Vatican Prasies 'Homer Simpson' for Being 'A True Catholic'?
They say that God works in mysterious ways. As proof, look no further than a recent story in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, which praised Homer Simpson for being a "true" Catholic. The publication cites "The Simpsons" for using "Christian faith, religion and questions about God" as recurring themes. At first glance, it seems odd that a child-choking, beer-swilling glutton who has embodied all seven deadly sins could be considered a shining example of a man of faith. Then again, as the Vatican paper explained, the Simpson family "recites prayers before meals and, in their own way, believes in the life thereafter." http://www.tvguide.com/News/Special-Report-Faith-1027280.aspx
Religion & Spirituality - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It's also funny that Catholics are calling a fictional Christian 'true' (emphasis on TRUE) Catholics.
2 :
read about that, that's why i'm protestant
3 :
Sounds to me like the Holy Roman may be trying to latch on to a popular TV show for propaganda purposes, LOL.
4 :
All I'm thinking about is that one espideo Marg got really anti catholic on bart and homer because they wanted to be catholic
5 :
So, according to them, being a true catholic is all about following certain rituals and having faith, while morals don't matter...
6 :
Lisa is a Christ figure she is always standing up for truth and justice.
7 :
The Catholic League HATES HATES HATES that show, so it is weird. on top of that, the Simpson family is Presbyluthertarian, a fictional protestant sect. and in an episode where the world is ending people are all like "what do we do" Homer says "this book does not have any answers!!" and also "....if he (god) is too busy not existing"... I don't think the Vatican actually watches the show.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Can Gore sell ice cubes to Eskimos
Can Gore sell ice cubes to Eskimos?
Parson Al winning the Nobel Peace Prize was as predictable as his Oscar for Best Documentary, and represents the final debasement of a once-prestigious award. It used to be that the award went to people of genuine humanitarian or diplomatic accomplishment, like Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer or Doctors Without Borders. Now it goes to frauds and poseurs like Rigoberta Menchu, Yassir Arafat, the U.N. (three times now, counting Gore’s co-winner, the U.N.’s climate change panel), and Jimmy Carter. About the only way to top this would be to give the next Peace Prize to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. More likely the Nobel committee will, one of these days, simply pat itself on the back and give the award to . . . themselves. The glitter of the Nobel overshadows the inconvenient news reported last week that a British court of law labeled Gore’s movie as partisan political propaganda, pointing out 11 different errors of fact or scientific judgment, and prohibiting its screening in British public schools without a disclaimer of these defects. The Nobel will be one more quiver in Gore’s arsenal of intransigent moral authority by which he refuses to debate any aspect of the subject and declares the entire matter “settled.†It’s never a good sign when politicians declare a scientific matter settled; we all remember how well that worked out for the Vatican when they told Galileo 400 years ago that astronomy was settled. It is even more problematic to suggest that climate change is not a political issue, but a moral issue, but then to demand massive political interventions in the economy to fix the problem. The adrenaline rush of the Nobel is likely to prove evanescent, however, and will probably turn out to be the high water mark of climate hysteria. Increasingly, climate catastrophe is coming more and more to resemble the hysteria over the “population bomb†of the late 1960s and early 1970s. In those days, Paul Ehrlich was a frequent guest on Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show, and there were government commissions launched here and abroad to ponder whether we needed an aggressive anti-natalist policy. The effort to develop a population policy in the U.S. collapsed quickly and quietly when someone pointed out that any anti-natalist policy would disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minorities. Oops. Population pressures were and remain a genuine environmental concern, but it gradually became clear that Ehrlich and other alarmists had way overestimated the problem, and it looks very different today. (Indeed, the great social problem of the end of this century may be population that is falling too rapidly.) And while Ehrlich is still peddling the same Malthusian gloom, he never turns up on the Tonight Show any more; in fact, he doesn’t even make it on Hardball or Countdown with Krazy Keith. Likewise, climate change is a real phenomenon, but the catastrophic scenario of Gore and his fellow climate campaigners is steadily fraying around the edges if you follow the scientific literature closely. Has anyone noticed, for example, that global temperature has been flat for the last decade, after two decades of slow and steady increase from 1980 to 1998? Most of the climate models suggest global temperature should be consistently warming with the rise of greenhouse gases, but it has stopped. This increasingly inconvenient truth will eventually become too obvious for even the media to ignore. Meanwhile, the real world economic consequences of Gore’s policy agenda (which Obama and Edwards—but not Hillary—have signed up for) are so extreme that no self-governing people will ever submit to it, which is why a few environmentalists have gone so far as to say openly, “down with democracy.†Go ahead; make my day; try that out on the American people. The Democratic Congress can’t even pass a modest emissions trading scheme that would barely begin to enact Gore’s agenda, because they are afraid of its cost. Prediction: In 20 years Gore or his climate alarmist successors will be lucky to appear on cable access TV, and Gore’s Peace Prize will take its place alongside Le Duc Tho’s 1973 award as a Nobel embarrassment.
Politics - 5 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
You're just jealous. Stop whining like a little girl. If Bush has won you would saying the exact opposite. Grow up you big baby.
2 :
Debasement my asss he won it fair and square. Quit being such a partisan hack.
3 :
i heard he's got a timeshare in tehran he wants to show you
4 :
No according to him all the ice is melted
5 :
I agree. It's an embarrassment that this once prestigious award is handed out so lightly. This movie is about a slide show full of very questionable "facts". Actually, Gore made a movie to glorify himself, and apparently he succeeded, some would say.
Parson Al winning the Nobel Peace Prize was as predictable as his Oscar for Best Documentary, and represents the final debasement of a once-prestigious award. It used to be that the award went to people of genuine humanitarian or diplomatic accomplishment, like Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer or Doctors Without Borders. Now it goes to frauds and poseurs like Rigoberta Menchu, Yassir Arafat, the U.N. (three times now, counting Gore’s co-winner, the U.N.’s climate change panel), and Jimmy Carter. About the only way to top this would be to give the next Peace Prize to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. More likely the Nobel committee will, one of these days, simply pat itself on the back and give the award to . . . themselves. The glitter of the Nobel overshadows the inconvenient news reported last week that a British court of law labeled Gore’s movie as partisan political propaganda, pointing out 11 different errors of fact or scientific judgment, and prohibiting its screening in British public schools without a disclaimer of these defects. The Nobel will be one more quiver in Gore’s arsenal of intransigent moral authority by which he refuses to debate any aspect of the subject and declares the entire matter “settled.†It’s never a good sign when politicians declare a scientific matter settled; we all remember how well that worked out for the Vatican when they told Galileo 400 years ago that astronomy was settled. It is even more problematic to suggest that climate change is not a political issue, but a moral issue, but then to demand massive political interventions in the economy to fix the problem. The adrenaline rush of the Nobel is likely to prove evanescent, however, and will probably turn out to be the high water mark of climate hysteria. Increasingly, climate catastrophe is coming more and more to resemble the hysteria over the “population bomb†of the late 1960s and early 1970s. In those days, Paul Ehrlich was a frequent guest on Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show, and there were government commissions launched here and abroad to ponder whether we needed an aggressive anti-natalist policy. The effort to develop a population policy in the U.S. collapsed quickly and quietly when someone pointed out that any anti-natalist policy would disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minorities. Oops. Population pressures were and remain a genuine environmental concern, but it gradually became clear that Ehrlich and other alarmists had way overestimated the problem, and it looks very different today. (Indeed, the great social problem of the end of this century may be population that is falling too rapidly.) And while Ehrlich is still peddling the same Malthusian gloom, he never turns up on the Tonight Show any more; in fact, he doesn’t even make it on Hardball or Countdown with Krazy Keith. Likewise, climate change is a real phenomenon, but the catastrophic scenario of Gore and his fellow climate campaigners is steadily fraying around the edges if you follow the scientific literature closely. Has anyone noticed, for example, that global temperature has been flat for the last decade, after two decades of slow and steady increase from 1980 to 1998? Most of the climate models suggest global temperature should be consistently warming with the rise of greenhouse gases, but it has stopped. This increasingly inconvenient truth will eventually become too obvious for even the media to ignore. Meanwhile, the real world economic consequences of Gore’s policy agenda (which Obama and Edwards—but not Hillary—have signed up for) are so extreme that no self-governing people will ever submit to it, which is why a few environmentalists have gone so far as to say openly, “down with democracy.†Go ahead; make my day; try that out on the American people. The Democratic Congress can’t even pass a modest emissions trading scheme that would barely begin to enact Gore’s agenda, because they are afraid of its cost. Prediction: In 20 years Gore or his climate alarmist successors will be lucky to appear on cable access TV, and Gore’s Peace Prize will take its place alongside Le Duc Tho’s 1973 award as a Nobel embarrassment.
Politics - 5 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
You're just jealous. Stop whining like a little girl. If Bush has won you would saying the exact opposite. Grow up you big baby.
2 :
Debasement my asss he won it fair and square. Quit being such a partisan hack.
3 :
i heard he's got a timeshare in tehran he wants to show you
4 :
No according to him all the ice is melted
5 :
I agree. It's an embarrassment that this once prestigious award is handed out so lightly. This movie is about a slide show full of very questionable "facts". Actually, Gore made a movie to glorify himself, and apparently he succeeded, some would say.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Catholics, do you have complete faith that your Church is working for your interests
Catholics, do you have complete faith that your Church is working for your interests?
Despite the Catholic Church's innumerable evils in the past, do you believe it has changed it ways, and if so, why? Source: Former Australian Ambassador to the Vatican
Religion & Spirituality - 11 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Nope. But although I am Catholic, I don't put my faith in the earthly church, but in God.
2 :
This is exactly why, we are to put our faith in God through Jesus Christ, and not a church or religion.
3 :
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA breathe.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
4 :
Ex-Catholic here and no pun intended but HELL NO.
5 :
if i want to pray and i am sincere in my quest i do not have to go into a gilded house.....*(church) i can do it at home, in the field under a tree or when i walk my dog. And i do not believe very much what my namesake in the Vatican is doing, he is out of touch with the world, unfortunately to many ARE listening and are obedient to him.
6 :
Yes, I think that the Catholic Church changed its ways, and that it is working for our interests. It had a few problems in the past but nowadays I noticed that everything is good and that there is no "evils" anymore like in the past, I think its due to the new way of thinking, a new way of working and organisation. Hope my answer helped you.
7 :
I do not consider the Catholic Church itself to have ever committed evils; but many of it's members certainly. As a Catholic I am pleased in the Church for been the prime mover in Ecumenism if even so once slow to start; and also with the many direct explaining of Christ's teaching to signs of the times; here and now. I do consider that even though so very complex; allowing priests who were married; yet having their children at the youngest of an age able to act independently as adults could and would address the declining numbers of priests. As Catholicism slowly continues to grow in population. I love my Church. It's my Community, my Family and my Communion with God within the faithful.
8 :
<<Catholics, do you have complete faith that your Church is working for your interests?>> Yes. <<Despite the Catholic Church's innumerable evils in the past, do you believe it has changed it ways, and if so, why?>> What "innumerable evils"? What "changed ways"? <<Source: Former Australian Ambassador to the Vatican>> Yeah, "former". Big deal.
9 :
The Catholic faith is not evil.It is the church established by Christ. Christ did not created many church only one.Men make things evil.
10 :
Absolutely!!!! Why? 1) Matt 16:18-19 2) GOD promises to leave us with someone (Holy Spirit) 3) GOD promises to be with HIS Church for all time So, again... Yes I do... Also, I highly doubt that an Ambassador would spend his time, asking questions on Yahoo Answers... hahahahah
11 :
No, honestly it seems like the Vatican is usually more concerned about what they think rather than the people, they try to force things like the awful new translation with grammatical errors upon all the people of the english speaking world when they don't even speak english. How can they expect bad grammer to renew the faith of the people, when it makes no logical sense? When did jesus ever speak in ways the people could not easily understand?
Despite the Catholic Church's innumerable evils in the past, do you believe it has changed it ways, and if so, why? Source: Former Australian Ambassador to the Vatican
Religion & Spirituality - 11 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Nope. But although I am Catholic, I don't put my faith in the earthly church, but in God.
2 :
This is exactly why, we are to put our faith in God through Jesus Christ, and not a church or religion.
3 :
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA breathe.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
4 :
Ex-Catholic here and no pun intended but HELL NO.
5 :
if i want to pray and i am sincere in my quest i do not have to go into a gilded house.....*(church) i can do it at home, in the field under a tree or when i walk my dog. And i do not believe very much what my namesake in the Vatican is doing, he is out of touch with the world, unfortunately to many ARE listening and are obedient to him.
6 :
Yes, I think that the Catholic Church changed its ways, and that it is working for our interests. It had a few problems in the past but nowadays I noticed that everything is good and that there is no "evils" anymore like in the past, I think its due to the new way of thinking, a new way of working and organisation. Hope my answer helped you.
7 :
I do not consider the Catholic Church itself to have ever committed evils; but many of it's members certainly. As a Catholic I am pleased in the Church for been the prime mover in Ecumenism if even so once slow to start; and also with the many direct explaining of Christ's teaching to signs of the times; here and now. I do consider that even though so very complex; allowing priests who were married; yet having their children at the youngest of an age able to act independently as adults could and would address the declining numbers of priests. As Catholicism slowly continues to grow in population. I love my Church. It's my Community, my Family and my Communion with God within the faithful.
8 :
<<Catholics, do you have complete faith that your Church is working for your interests?>> Yes. <<Despite the Catholic Church's innumerable evils in the past, do you believe it has changed it ways, and if so, why?>> What "innumerable evils"? What "changed ways"? <<Source: Former Australian Ambassador to the Vatican>> Yeah, "former". Big deal.
9 :
The Catholic faith is not evil.It is the church established by Christ. Christ did not created many church only one.Men make things evil.
10 :
Absolutely!!!! Why? 1) Matt 16:18-19 2) GOD promises to leave us with someone (Holy Spirit) 3) GOD promises to be with HIS Church for all time So, again... Yes I do... Also, I highly doubt that an Ambassador would spend his time, asking questions on Yahoo Answers... hahahahah
11 :
No, honestly it seems like the Vatican is usually more concerned about what they think rather than the people, they try to force things like the awful new translation with grammatical errors upon all the people of the english speaking world when they don't even speak english. How can they expect bad grammer to renew the faith of the people, when it makes no logical sense? When did jesus ever speak in ways the people could not easily understand?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)