Does the Pope know what he's talking about?
-
Oakman wrote:
I always appreciate your answers, and enjoy your brilliant repartee!
the truth comes out!
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
How would you know. Can you prove it ? Or is it just something you tell yourself for fun ?
If you were willing to think for a moment or two, you'd understand that it's true. But you're not, so you won't -- you're not interested in "proof" and we both know this.
-
You can't be serious. The crusades ? The Spanish Inquisition ( although this was more political and the Catholic Church was not behind or supportive of it especially ) ? That's just the biggies.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
You can't be serious. The crusades ? The Spanish Inquisition ( although this was more political and the Catholic Church was not behind or supportive of it especially ) ? That's just the biggies.
Once again you demonstrate that you will not think.
-
Ilíon wrote:
you're not interested in "proof" and we both know this.
And that's how to get away with unsubstantiated statements. "Put up or shut up", would be an uncouth response.
Bob Emmett
-
Oakman wrote:
Wow! I did not know that! :omg: So how much underestimating is going on? Got any citations to back up both of those claims?
If you were willing to think for a moment or two, you'd understand that it's true. But you're not, so you won't -- you're not interested in "any citations to back up both of those claims" and we both know this.
Ilíon wrote:
If you were willing to think for a moment or two, you'd understand that it's true.
Had you used the word 'inaccurate', rather than the more emotive 'bogus', a moment or two's thought about the difficulty of collecting, verifying, and collating figures in third world countries, contrasted with the same task in the USA, would probably led us to agree with you. But 'bogus' implies deliberate falsification, and a claim like that has to be substantiated.
Bob Emmett
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
And that's how to get away with unsubstantiated statements. "Put up or shut up", would be an uncouth response.
Silly man, the world didn't start yesterday.
Ilíon wrote:
Silly man, the world didn't start yesterday.
I have no idea what that statement means in the current context. You have made a claim that the AIDS statistics in Africa and the USA are 'bogus'. You are asked to provide evidence, and you merely resort to insult. That is intellectual dishonesty.
Bob Emmett
-
scottgp wrote:
It does look like something was lost in translation.
Yes, like maybe the essential part of the argument.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Silly man, the world didn't start yesterday.
I have no idea what that statement means in the current context. You have made a claim that the AIDS statistics in Africa and the USA are 'bogus'. You are asked to provide evidence, and you merely resort to insult. That is intellectual dishonesty.
Bob Emmett
-
Ilíon wrote:
Genuine religion rejects and battles injustice. Genuine religion rejects ... and battles ... unjust violence.
Please let me know which is the 'genuine religion', so that I may ascertain the veracity of this statement.
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
Please let me know which is the 'genuine religion',
We will pray to Aphrodite She's beautiful but flighty In her silken see-thru nightie She's good enough for me. We will pray to Zarathrustra, Pray just like we used-to, I'm a Zarathrustra booster, He's good enough for me. We will pray just like the Druids, Drinking strange fermented fluids, Go dancing naked through the woods, They're good enough for me. We will pray to the god Buddha, Of gods there is none cuter, Come in silver, brass or pewter, He's good enough for me. We will pray with those Egyptians, Who built pyramids to put our crypts in Covered up with strange inscriptions, They're good enough for me. We will pray to Ra and Ahmen Just like Tutankhamen, And teach our friends embalming, They're good enough for me. Hare Krishna he must be laughed on, To see me dressed in saffron, With my hair only half-on He's good enough for me. I will rise up at early morning, When my Lord gives me the warning, That the solar age is dawning, He's good enough for me. We won't worship like the Persians, We'll sacrifice no virgins, Please control your carnal urgin's, It's good enough for me. We will all worship the Mother Not the womb of any other Virgin, crone and mother She's good enough for me We will pray for New Age Aquarians, And hang out in Planetariums, Lotta um are Unitarians, They're good enough for me. We will pray to a god named Odin, In their wooden boats go floatin' Filled Europe with forbodin' He's good enough for me. We will pray to the Quakers Oft confused with the Shakers, Of war they are not makers, They're good enough for me. We will pray to the god Shiva, the one with many sleeva's Who destroys all disbelivas He's good enough for me. We will pray to rev Moon All our friends will think we're loony As we sing this crazy tune-y, He's good enough for me. Recorded by Pete Seeger on Precious Friend JY
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ilíon wrote:
Genuine religion rejects and battles injustice. Genuine religion rejects ... and battles ... unjust violence.
Please let me know which is the 'genuine religion', so that I may ascertain the veracity of this statement.
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
Please let me know which is the 'genuine religion', so that I may ascertain the veracity of this statement.
Why, Islam is the only 'genuine religion' (*) -- as current trends indicate you'll be compelled to state in the not too distant future. (*) Sheesh! Everyone knows that.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Silly man, the world didn't start yesterday.
I have no idea what that statement means in the current context. You have made a claim that the AIDS statistics in Africa and the USA are 'bogus'. You are asked to provide evidence, and you merely resort to insult. That is intellectual dishonesty.
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
That is intellectual dishonesty.
I see nothing intellectual about it.:)
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Please let me know which is the 'genuine religion', so that I may ascertain the veracity of this statement.
Why, Islam is the only 'genuine religion' (*) -- as current trends indicate you'll be compelled to state in the not too distant future. (*) Sheesh! Everyone knows that.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
How would you know. Can you prove it ? Or is it just something you tell yourself for fun ?
If you were willing to think for a moment or two, you'd understand that it's true. But you're not, so you won't -- you're not interested in "proof" and we both know this.
Brilliant. You have no proof, because I'm not interested in it. It's just OBVIOUS that people in the third world can't have aids, because they can't afford any heroin. Right ? Thanks for proving that you're an ignoramus who is spouting crap with no evidence to back it up.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
He's not sad, he's plain pathetic. And probably delusional. I bet he thinks that he's devastated us with the logic of the case he put forward.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Genuine religion rejects ... and battles ... unjust violence.
Looking at history one quickly comes to the conclusion that genuine religion kills over the most minor points of theology, and/or who gets to count the cash after the collection.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
genuine religion kills over the most minor points of theology
I thought you could figure out the difference between the product and the people who misuse it. Contextually, Christ (true religion) rejects unjust violence (But not all violence). That does not mean millions of people have not killed millions of others over stupid things in His name. But that makes THEM f'd up, not the religion they do not correctly follow. Getting back to the OPs question, having been brought up Catholic, I can categorically say that while being Pope does not make you infallible, in this case he is correct. But we are fallen people in a fallen world and screw it up constantly.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Oakman wrote:
Wow! I did not know that! :omg: So how much underestimating is going on? Got any citations to back up both of those claims?
If you were willing to think for a moment or two, you'd understand that it's true. But you're not, so you won't -- you're not interested in "any citations to back up both of those claims" and we both know this.
Fine, maybe he is not interested. But there are other people reading your comments. You should provide sources, that way everyone other than Oakman has a chance of seeing if you are presenting useful information.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Oakman wrote:
genuine religion kills over the most minor points of theology
I thought you could figure out the difference between the product and the people who misuse it. Contextually, Christ (true religion) rejects unjust violence (But not all violence). That does not mean millions of people have not killed millions of others over stupid things in His name. But that makes THEM f'd up, not the religion they do not correctly follow. Getting back to the OPs question, having been brought up Catholic, I can categorically say that while being Pope does not make you infallible, in this case he is correct. But we are fallen people in a fallen world and screw it up constantly.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
I thought you could figure out the difference between the product and the people who misuse it.
The last time I looked, God ( by most definitions) is not considered a product by anyone who believes he/she/it exists. Indeed, the way I learned it, people are the product, and God is the producer. YMMV. Religion on the other hand, is the product of men who say they are divinely inspired to explain what God expects of us. It is created by, administered by, and explained by fallible humans who can offer no independent proof that their pipeline to God is any more direct than anyone else's. Religious faith, it seems, boils down to believing in them, not God.
RichardM1 wrote:
Contextually, Christ (true religion) rejects unjust violence (But not all violence).
Presumably this is a way of your saying that one or more branches of Christianity has the (best||only) pipeline, and that said branch has assured you that God likes some killing but not all killing. There also seems to be some semantic confusion between the act of veneration and the object of veneration. A belief in God can exist quite apart from the acceptance of any form of organized religion. Saying that religion may indeed kill over the most minor points of theology, and/or who gets to count the cash after the collection, does not necessarily give any indication of whether the speaker believes in God or not.
RichardM1 wrote:
I can categorically say that while being Pope does not make you infallible
Actually I agree with George Bernard Shaw who pointed out that the claim of a Pope to be infallible in a very small area of human thought, after considering the subject at some length is really far less offensive than most of the claims made by men who assure the general populace that they are an absolute expert in something or everything. Implicit in the Pope's claim is the admission that in most cases, he is just as fallible as anyone else. A humbleness I wouldn't mind seeing many politicans - or Ilion - emulate.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I thought you could figure out the difference between the product and the people who misuse it.
The last time I looked, God ( by most definitions) is not considered a product by anyone who believes he/she/it exists. Indeed, the way I learned it, people are the product, and God is the producer. YMMV. Religion on the other hand, is the product of men who say they are divinely inspired to explain what God expects of us. It is created by, administered by, and explained by fallible humans who can offer no independent proof that their pipeline to God is any more direct than anyone else's. Religious faith, it seems, boils down to believing in them, not God.
RichardM1 wrote:
Contextually, Christ (true religion) rejects unjust violence (But not all violence).
Presumably this is a way of your saying that one or more branches of Christianity has the (best||only) pipeline, and that said branch has assured you that God likes some killing but not all killing. There also seems to be some semantic confusion between the act of veneration and the object of veneration. A belief in God can exist quite apart from the acceptance of any form of organized religion. Saying that religion may indeed kill over the most minor points of theology, and/or who gets to count the cash after the collection, does not necessarily give any indication of whether the speaker believes in God or not.
RichardM1 wrote:
I can categorically say that while being Pope does not make you infallible
Actually I agree with George Bernard Shaw who pointed out that the claim of a Pope to be infallible in a very small area of human thought, after considering the subject at some length is really far less offensive than most of the claims made by men who assure the general populace that they are an absolute expert in something or everything. Implicit in the Pope's claim is the admission that in most cases, he is just as fallible as anyone else. A humbleness I wouldn't mind seeing many politicans - or Ilion - emulate.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The last time I looked, God ( by most definitions) is not considered a product by anyone who believes he/she/it exists. Indeed, the way I learned it, people are the product, and God is the producer. YMMV.
Admittedly bad choice of words on my part, but again, I would trust you to look past that to the real argument. By sidestepping it, you are looking like Troy.
Oakman wrote:
Presumably this is a way of your saying that one or more branches of Christianity has the (best||only) pipeline
How can you read the word "true religion" and not think that is what the Pope meant?
Oakman wrote:
, and that said branch has assured you that God likes some killing but not all killing.
It is simple - there is one available source of information on Christ, and you either have to treat it as authoritative, or believe in Christ only because - what? Where does information on Him come from? It's like saying you believe in Quantum Mechanics, but than saying that you don't believe in uncertainty, and not accepting the experimental evidence shows it. The Bible IS the experimental data available on Christ. If you come up with some other source, feel free to share it. Oh wait, that would be religion. So yes, single source. According to it, Christ whipped people. Used violence. On those who did not show respect for the Lord, and the Temple as the Lord's house, as opposed to those who were oppressing/subjugating others.
Oakman wrote:
Religion on the other hand, is the product of men who say they are divinely inspired to explain what God expects of us.
Yes, yes, the whole religion vs faith argument. Yes. religion sucks, since it is people imposing their ideas on others, and it is unfortunate that the word used by the Pope was not 'belief'. But like I said about the Pope. Unfortunately, this is the area he in which he is supposed to be infallible. In the BSG thread, you said Rob Graham wrote: there is no right or wrong, just shades of victimization I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with that phrase. Not even Starbuck is interesting any more. (end qoute) It looks like you believe there is good and evil (either that, or you like where BSG has gone :) ). Where do you think it comes from? Do you think there is absolute truth?
-
Oakman wrote:
The last time I looked, God ( by most definitions) is not considered a product by anyone who believes he/she/it exists. Indeed, the way I learned it, people are the product, and God is the producer. YMMV.
Admittedly bad choice of words on my part, but again, I would trust you to look past that to the real argument. By sidestepping it, you are looking like Troy.
Oakman wrote:
Presumably this is a way of your saying that one or more branches of Christianity has the (best||only) pipeline
How can you read the word "true religion" and not think that is what the Pope meant?
Oakman wrote:
, and that said branch has assured you that God likes some killing but not all killing.
It is simple - there is one available source of information on Christ, and you either have to treat it as authoritative, or believe in Christ only because - what? Where does information on Him come from? It's like saying you believe in Quantum Mechanics, but than saying that you don't believe in uncertainty, and not accepting the experimental evidence shows it. The Bible IS the experimental data available on Christ. If you come up with some other source, feel free to share it. Oh wait, that would be religion. So yes, single source. According to it, Christ whipped people. Used violence. On those who did not show respect for the Lord, and the Temple as the Lord's house, as opposed to those who were oppressing/subjugating others.
Oakman wrote:
Religion on the other hand, is the product of men who say they are divinely inspired to explain what God expects of us.
Yes, yes, the whole religion vs faith argument. Yes. religion sucks, since it is people imposing their ideas on others, and it is unfortunate that the word used by the Pope was not 'belief'. But like I said about the Pope. Unfortunately, this is the area he in which he is supposed to be infallible. In the BSG thread, you said Rob Graham wrote: there is no right or wrong, just shades of victimization I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with that phrase. Not even Starbuck is interesting any more. (end qoute) It looks like you believe there is good and evil (either that, or you like where BSG has gone :) ). Where do you think it comes from? Do you think there is absolute truth?
RichardM1 wrote:
you are looking like Troy.
Don't be silly. I have hair on my balls.
RichardM1 wrote:
How can you read the word "true religion" and not think that is what the Pope meant?
Actually I read something quite different into what he said - it appeared to me that his thesis was that "true" religions were peace-loving - including Episcopalians, Buddhists, and Muslims.
RichardM1 wrote:
So yes, single source
Actually there are (a few) historical records of more or less verified writings. More importantly, we need to remember that a large portion of the New Testament was written years after the crucifixion of Yeshua, mostly by men who were pretending they were someone else with a better claim to knowing what they were talking about. And which books would be considered canonical was the result of a very political process about three hundred years later. While we are at it, we might also consider that "the Bible" is the translation of a translation of a translation - unless you, of course, are one of the folks who has read the earliest copies written in Aramaic and Greek. I know enough to know that the Hebrews inhabiting Judea a couple of millenia ago did not talk like Elizabethans, but not enough to comment on the accuracy of any particular passage. Though I have had fun debating the meaning of some of them.
RichardM1 wrote:
Unfortunately, this is the area he in which he is supposed to be infallible
Only when he specifically states that he is speaking ex cathedra
RichardM1 wrote:
whole religion vs faith argument
I guess I am not familiar with that one, at least not by that name.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you think there is absolute truth?
If there is, I don't imagine I am equipped to know it. Nor, as near as I can tell, is anyone else.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface