Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How to call the infallible to account.... (re: The Pope)
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 16 of 43 (574339)
08-15-2010 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
08-15-2010 12:07 PM


Re: Exhibiting Historical And Doctrinal Ignorance
Buz writes:
most of the religious wars being between these two political-religious power players.
Again, simply untrue Buz.
The majority of religious wars have been Christian vs Christian or Christian slaughtering the Heathens. Nobody does genocide bettern we do.
But even of your nonsense was true, it has NOTHING to do with the topic.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 08-15-2010 12:07 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4956 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 17 of 43 (574340)
08-15-2010 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
08-15-2010 10:24 AM


Have you read the details? He wa the head of a 'fixit squad' within the Vatican. When the paedophile charges started to surface he announced a new theological tool - the 'Crimen+Sollicitationis'. Basically it was a doctrinal instruction to Bishops and Clergy of how they must handle abuse allegations. They were forbidden to involve the police or other authorities and instructed to refer the matter to him at the Vatican, and he would then 'deal with it'.
http://www.usao.edu/...cretarium/crimensollicitationis01.htm
http://www.usao.edu/~facshaferi/secretarium/secretarium.htm
That in itself is worthy of a trial - conspiracy to withhold evidence, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice - those would be two charges that immediately spring to mind.
Once the guilty (or to be precise, some guilty and some merely accused) priests were in Ratzinger's sights, he arranged for them to shift to a different parish and resume their priestly role. Several possible charges might be appropriate for that - concealing evidence, reckless endangerment etc...
And this is just what we know....
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 08-15-2010 10:24 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 08-15-2010 12:31 PM Bikerman has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 18 of 43 (574341)
08-15-2010 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
08-15-2010 12:07 PM


Re: Exhibiting Historical And Doctrinal Ignorance
It also implicates ignorance on your part as to how The RCC and Islam, both evil, oppressive and violent when they wield power, have kept one another at bay over the centuries; most of the religious wars being between these two political-religious power players. The both strive toward integration of church and state, the RCC, essentially ruling Europe by proxy, during the Dark Age centuries.
And by presenting this list of irrelevancies, all you demonstrate is that you're still living in the middle ages. Welcome to the 21st century, where the RCC has absolutely no relevance in terms of world security, and the danger from Islam is limited to a small percentage of total believers, all of whom are hate-filled bigots who want to try to make everyone live according to their irrational fairy tales. Now, who on this board does that remind me of? Hmmmmmmm.........

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 08-15-2010 12:07 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 19 of 43 (574344)
08-15-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Bikerman
08-15-2010 12:12 PM


Yes, I'm very familiar with those documents.
However I still am not convinced there is sufficient evidence to rise to the level needed for a criminal indictment of a Head of state.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Bikerman, posted 08-15-2010 12:12 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Bikerman, posted 08-15-2010 1:40 PM jar has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4956 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 20 of 43 (574358)
08-15-2010 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
08-15-2010 12:31 PM


So you are saying that a trial of a HOS requires a different standard of evidence? Guilty beyond reasonable doubt does for me, so I cannot agree with that for fairly obvious reasons.
There is clearly much more in the Vatican archives and what would really make my year is if a prosecution WAS launched - there would undoubtedly be court instructions to reveal the archives. What a lot we would then learn.........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 08-15-2010 12:31 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 08-15-2010 1:51 PM Bikerman has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 21 of 43 (574362)
08-15-2010 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Bikerman
08-15-2010 1:40 PM


No, I am not saying that a higher standard of evidence is needed, I just don't personally think the charges are sufficient to indict a Head of State.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Bikerman, posted 08-15-2010 1:40 PM Bikerman has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 22 of 43 (574369)
08-15-2010 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Bikerman
08-15-2010 8:17 AM


Bikerman writes:
The church has had the opportunity, over my lifetime, to modernise, to move towards a more liberal theology, ...
It did move a little in that direction, for a while.
We are now seeing the inevitable reactionary response from the authoritarians who control the institution.
Bikerman writes:
the outrageous position on condoms, the scientifically illiterate position on birth control and sex in general (blocking conception is a moral sin, masturbation is a mortal sin etc etc), ...
But that has been the basis for the success of Christianity - make the normal human sex drive into a mortal sin (as "original sin"), and then people will be at the mercy of the church for they are unable to suppress that biological drive.
The Church fights science, because if people can ever understand that they are biological creatures, and that their sex drive is a perfectly normal part of their nature as biological creatures, then the Church will no longer be able to use fear of the sex drive as a way of controlling people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Bikerman, posted 08-15-2010 8:17 AM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Bikerman, posted 08-15-2010 3:00 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4956 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 23 of 43 (574372)
08-15-2010 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by nwr
08-15-2010 2:32 PM


I think that is too simplistic. Look back to the beginning of last century. A Jesuit was heavily involved in the Big Bang theory. The pope was genuinely 'into' science.
Now, OK you can say that the BB theory was great for catholicism because it shows the universe had a start and therefore potential for a God to start it, but I think that is too cynical. Even the current mob accept evolution and other science which it would be futile to deny, so they CAN change....they just have chosen not to, which is both interesting and quite evil - in the real earthly sense of that word, not some spiritual notional sense (IMHO).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nwr, posted 08-15-2010 2:32 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 24 of 43 (574472)
08-16-2010 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Buzsaw
08-15-2010 11:49 AM


Re: Special Priviledges
Hi Buz
JUC writes:
.........National Secular Society who do a great job in lobbying and campaigning against religious privilege.
Buzsaw writes:
Speaking of priviledges, aren't the facilities of the NSS (above) exempt from taxes? That's a priviledge not applied to the rest of us.
I'm not sure what rules may apply to secular organisations in other countries, but the NSS in the UK does not have any special tax privileges. It has to pay the same tax rates that apply to most of us because, unlike most religious organisations, it is not a registered charity. It does not pay huge sums in tax because it is not a profit making organisation, and, unlike many religious organisations, it certainly does not hold on to huge funds of millions or billions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Buzsaw, posted 08-15-2010 11:49 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 08-16-2010 7:36 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 43 (574479)
08-16-2010 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
08-16-2010 5:50 AM


Re: Special Priviledges
I stand corrected, JUC. Thanks

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-16-2010 5:50 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 26 of 43 (574482)
08-16-2010 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Bikerman
08-15-2010 11:54 AM


I have a lot of sympathy with that view, but it has dangers as well...The problem is that the general public have a perception of Rowan Williams as an academic, gentle-spoken, considered and reasonable man.
I agree a lot of people have that perception. However, I'm convinced that all religions support each other simply through their existence. This includes religions that are directly opposed, as well as those where there are branches ranging from moderate to fundamentalist. The shear variety of religions and denominations conveys an impression of normality and acceptablilty, and helps enourmously in confusing attackers and deflecting criticism. I'm sure that once 1 or 2 major institutions start to collapse, they could bring many more down with them.
The truth is somewhat different. He (Rowan Williams) is actually a buffoon, and when you cut through the academic image I don't think he is as bright as people give credit for - in fact I'm certain of it.
I agree 100%! It's amazing how just sporting a beard can convince many people that you are a wise sage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Bikerman, posted 08-15-2010 11:54 AM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Bikerman, posted 08-16-2010 8:48 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4956 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 27 of 43 (574495)
08-16-2010 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
08-16-2010 7:45 AM


Well there is some evidence for what you say (about religions supporting each other) -- specifically Williams provides it. Remember when he upset the Catholics with his comment about the CC 'loosing all credibility'? That is a comment about a direct rival religion - many of the CofE conservative wing are, or have threatened to, leaving the CofE and joining the Catholics. And yet within 24 hours Williams gives a grovelling apology to catholics saying he had "no intention of criticising or attacking" the Catholic Church.
Now, that is a religion which is in direct competition with his and he is still reluctant to say what is obvious and evidently true, and when he does let it slip he quickly recants.
Then consider his comments on Islam. He goes on record to say the the introduction of Sharia Law into the UK 'seems unavoidable'.
Gobsmacking - as the reaction proved. Now why would he say something so stupid? Obvious. He was attacking the notion of one law for all. In other words it is a bit of special pleading - he is trying to set the scene for opt-outs for his own Church from proposed or possible legislation that he finds unacceptible - some elements of human rights legislation, assisted suicide, proposals for disestablishment, repeal of the Blasphemy laws...who knows what specific target he has, but this is the only sensible reading of his comments on the matter - why else make such an inflamatory, divisive and actually untrue statement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-16-2010 7:45 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-16-2010 9:58 AM Bikerman has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


(1)
Message 28 of 43 (574512)
08-16-2010 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Bikerman
08-16-2010 8:48 AM


When I say that religions support each other, I don't necessarily mean directly by openly standing up for each other, or refusing to criticise each other. Sometimes they support each other by using other religions or denominations as reciprocal scapegoats. It's great to be able to pass the buck.
For example, how often these days do you hear Christians say when they are criticised, "Well, you wouldn't dare say that about Muslims. Why are you picking on Christians." Then you criticise Muslims and they say, "That's not fair. It's the fundamentalists you should be criticising, not true Muslims." So you criticise the fundamentalists and they say something like, "The persecution of women is nothing to do with Islam, that's a cultural tradition."
(Since when was Islam not a cultural tradition?)
It's a classic tactic adopted by bureaucrats everywhere. Make it your business to meddle in everyone's affairs and tell them what to do; then when you get criticised pass the buck on to some other department. No single individual or group is ever responsible for anything. This is surely exactly what we are seeing with the Catholic Church and the issue of various abuses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Bikerman, posted 08-16-2010 8:48 AM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Bikerman, posted 08-17-2010 1:33 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4956 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 29 of 43 (574729)
08-17-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
08-16-2010 9:58 AM


Well this is certainly what they tried when it first started to break - that and the 'everyone picks on us' syndrome - claiming that everyone is after them and this is just another attempt to smear them. They have now realised that this is really not a good approach as the number of abuse cases climbs rapidly. The Pope now talks about 'sin within the church' and is playing down the role of 'the accuser'. Too little too late, of course, and entirely self-serving.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-16-2010 9:58 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 30 of 43 (576247)
08-23-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bikerman
08-14-2010 11:16 PM


a) How can a church headed by a suspected criminal claim any moral authority?
just because some haters suspect you of something deosn't mean you cant have moral authority.
b) Can the Pope be prosecuted under provisions of the UN court - originally brought in to deal with Milosvitch? The principle of 'universal juristiction' is being openly suggested. Is this practical?
no he cannot.
c) Is it not time that the whole 'Vatican' show was brought to an end? The ridiculous charade of a square in the middle of Italy's capital, measuring just over 100 acres, being legally recognised as a state unto itself, is surely becomming not just anachronistic but actually risible. If heads of state are prepared to play these silly games of makebelieve then how do they expect their citizens to take them seriously?
its kind of how i feel about the king/queen of england.
once baptised a catholic then a catholic you remain.
I think you are confusing sacrements here, the one you speak of is called, appropriately enough, Confirmation.
buzsaw writes:
the secularist constituency repettively blames Christianity for the non-Christian, non-NT Biblical RCC attrocities in arguing that Christianity is violent and evil. What the folks here either deliberately or ingnorantly blame on Christianity is contrary to what Jesus and his apostles taught in the NT.
roflmfao...wow...i hope this is a joke, i can't believe there are people out there like this.
do you read (and believe) Chick tracks?
oh you mean like how the rapture is in the bible? give me a break!!!
It also implicates ignorance on your part as to how The RCC and Islam, both evil, oppressive and violent when they wield power, have kept one another at bay over the centuries; most of the religious wars being between these two political-religious power players. The both strive toward integration of church and state, the RCC, essentially ruling Europe by proxy, during the Dark Age centuries.
lol who is this guy?
Most of the religious wars are between Catholics and Muslims? Where the hell did you go to school? Jack Chick University? Maybe a couple crusades in the 12th and 13th century, but that is about it. the spanish reconquista was more about control of Espana than islam v. christianity. I would highly suspect most religious wars that took place were Christian vs. Christian rather than Islam vs. Catholics. I have no clue where you learned your history, but it is way off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bikerman, posted 08-14-2010 11:16 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Bikerman, posted 08-23-2010 11:10 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024