Pope Odds

kaharthemad · Post by **kaharthemad** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:19 pm

Just found this site..god what a laugh...

http://www.oddschecker.com/betting/mode ... sid/240720

if it is a repost sorry.

Post by **Lyion** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:51 pm

Thats interesting. Not a repost.

Harrison · Post by **Harrison** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:52 pm

People betting on the odds of who is going to be the next pope?

Wow...simply wow

Tikker · Post by **Tikker** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:58 pm

I'm voting for the dude that's apparently a relative!

kaharthemad · Post by **kaharthemad** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:16 pm

Looks like my pony cane in first. WTG Ratzinger

You do know the modern cardinals call the office upper management fastracking.
Seems due to the stress most popes go before their time.

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:05 pm

The African and Latin American catholics are going nuts over the appointment of Ratzinger. They wanted a Pope with brown skin. lol hypocrites.

brinstar · Post by **brinstar** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:21 pm

what do you mean

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:46 pm

brinstar wrote:what do you mean

I just read a Yahoo newsgroup where some South-American Bishops were all upset because Ratzinger got chosen, instead of a Pope with brown skin.

Post by **Martrae** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:52 pm

and this is hypocritical how?

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:54 pm

If you don't see the blatant hypocricy with that, there's nothing I can do for you.

Post by **Martrae** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 6:15 pm

Everyone wants someone that represents their interests. It's human nature.

brinstar · Post by **brinstar** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 6:36 pm

Mindia wrote:If you don't see the blatant hypocricy with that, there's nothing I can do for you.

yes there is

you could fucking explain how you think it is hypocritical, for starters

xKALECx · Post by **xKALECx** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 6:45 am

Because everything I read in Yahoo newsgroups is accurate. It's where I go to get my medical research.

labbats · Post by **labbats** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 7:09 am

xKALECx wrote:Because everything I read in Yahoo newsgroups is accurate. It's where I go to get my medical research.

Explain how this is sarcastic.

Eziekial · Post by **Eziekial** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 7:26 am

Labbats

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:27 pm

Alex stop being such a friggin troll. Get a life. All you do is follow me around and troll after my posts. GO AWAY. Have you anything to contribute?

Diabolik · Post by **Diabolik** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:01 pm

I'm curious as to how it's hypocritical, also. /shrug

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing.. I'm just wondering how it is so.

kaharthemad · Post by **kaharthemad** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:12 pm

So me saying I would have liked say an American Pope because I am an american it is hypocritical? No it is me wanting someone that has my best interests as well as the interest of half the Christian religion here in the states. Every country veiws what is important differently. some might say the Gay rights issue is most important(however I think the Catholics have shown their view on this one good or bad right or wrong). Another country might not even consider this a issue.

It is human nature for people to want a leader that has similar interests to thier own in mind this goes for everything from a relgous organization to the leader of the treehouse club in franky's yard.

brinstar · Post by **brinstar** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:26 pm

Mindia wrote:Alex stop being such a friggin troll. Get a life. All you do is follow me around and troll after my posts. GO AWAY. Have you anything to contribute?

i have been contributing the following question throughout this entire thread:

how is it hypocritical for african catholics and latino catholics to be disappointed that an african or latino pope was not elected?

thus far you have failed to contribute the answer

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:28 pm

Herein lies the hypocricy...

The Cardinals are supposed to get together to discuss and vote on who they think should be the next successor to St. Peter.

Now... Bishops, Priests, Monsignors, etc. all over the world are supposed to back the decision on who gets elected Pope. All I've seen in the news for the last two days is bickering and negative comments toward Ratzinger FROM "HOLY MEN" FROM THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

How can you have a cohesive unit of leaders of a religion who bicker and argue about who should be the next Pope because of his race? The South American Bishops were upset because the new Pope chosen did not have brown skin. So, it's ok for them to teach love and respect of mankind to their followers and parishioners... just as long as their skin is brown?

That is hypocricy.

Post by **Martrae** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:43 pm

That's a pretty far reach. There's nothing that says they can't back him and yet be disappointed in his ascendancy.

It's not any different than someone being disappointed that Bush won but backing him because he's the president.

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:45 pm

Martrae wrote:That's a pretty far reach. There's nothing that says they can't back him and yet be disappointed in his ascendancy.

It's not any different than someone being disappointed that Bush won but backing him because he's the president.

haha no. Nice try.

brinstar · Post by **brinstar** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:47 pm

ok now you have finally presented your point, and though i fully understand it (i have the same problem with pretty much every organized religion) i must disagree with it. here's why:

bishops want what's best for their constituency. the pope is the leader of the church, both spiritually and politically. wouldn't it follow that the bishops in south america or in africa would hope for one of their own to be elevated to papal status since it could be presumed that their own bishops would have a better understanding of their believers, and thus be able to tailor their work as pope to do more for catholicism in their neck of the woods? i don't see any harm in this. however, if they are indeed being as catty as you make them out to be (which could very well be true, i haven't followed it very closely) then that certainly does reflect badly upon them-- but as whiners, not necessarily hypocrites.

think of a "battle of the bands" contest you and your band competes in, with the winner receiving radio publicity, free recording time, and an opening slot on a big name national tour. you either know personally or are fairly well-acquainted with nearly every single member of the other 11 bands in the contest, so you would be happy for whoever won no matter what-- in the spirit of drawing attention and clout to your local scene. however, if it wasn't your band or perhaps your best friend's band or maybe even a band you don't know that well that put on a spectacular show during the contest that won, wouldn't you feel at least a little disappointed?

Harrison · Post by **Harrison** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 6:10 pm

Mindia wrote:
Martrae wrote:That's a pretty far reach. There's nothing that says they can't back him and yet be disappointed in his ascendancy.

It's not any different than someone being disappointed that Bush won but backing him because he's the president.

haha no. Nice try.

That made perfect sense.

I can't even fathom how or why you threw it out without a second thought.

Post by **Mop** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 6:28 pm

well the first problem is everyone likes and supports bush...