Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5266503)
I know what you mean about the rhetoric, but in this instance we have a man who actively participated in a cover up. I doubt very much if he'll leave the Vatican city, because now he no longer has the protection of head of state he may well be handed a subpoena.

He may or may not have actively participated in a cover up...and even if he did, he may have thought he was acting for a greater good by doing so.

I don't see this in quite the black and white term some people (obviously you included) see it. I think the conduct of the people who committed these crimes was reprehensible...but I can easily understand that people acting in accordance with the principle that the protection of the Church is the primary responsibility of the Church hierarchy...may have reasonable justification for what they tried to do. (I even acknowledge that much of what they tried to do was counterproductive.)

In any case, heaping scorn on this individual does not seem appropriate. Even if he did make mistakes, he is stepping off the stage in what I see as significant penance.

In any case, I am not prepared to throw stones.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

You need to come to terms with the ways of the world izzy. Selectively criticising the imperfections simply betrays your agenda. People notice who you are sticking the knife in and wonder why.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I'm not selectively sticking the knife in anyone. Frank spoke about the strong language used about this particular pope. I pointed out why Benedict is being singled out for criticism as opposed to general criticism about the Catholic church.

As for the loss of immunity once someone ceases to be head of state, that's a fact. Pinochet wasn't too happy about it either. Rest assured, if Benedict steps out of the security of the Vatican I won't be handing him a subpoena, but there are plenty of others who might.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I don't see this in quite the black and white term some people (obviously you included) see it.

I've actually avoided using the vicious rhetoric you've complained of. I'm not as extreme as you imagine. I'm not the one planning a class action suit against Benedict, if one does take place then these 'principles' will be examined in a court of law.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

In any case, heaping scorn on this individual does not seem appropriate.

I've hardly been 'heaping scorn' on the pope, unless of course you're talking about this, that I posted on another thread.

Quote:

A FOUR-LETTER outburst from the Pope stunned 100,000 pilgrims who had packed into St Peter's Square, Rome on Sunday. Making a rare public appearance, the 85 year-old Pontiff appeared tired and unsteady on his feet as he addressed the crowd from a Vatican balcony.
Slurring his words and holding onto a rail for support, John Paul II amazed onlookers by opening his traditional Summer address with a tirade of abuse directed at the central tenets of the Christian faith. Shocked catholics in the crowd were horrified to hear the holy father:

DISMISS the New Testament as a "parcel of ******* shite"
CONDEMN believers as "a load of cockwits"
and SLAM the resurrection as "a right load of old bollocks"
speech
Two minutes into the controversial speech the bemused crowd watched as a pair of cardinals appeared on the balcony and attempted to wrestle the microphone out of his hands. A short and unseemly scuffle ensued, during which the Pope was seen to strike out repeatedly, breaking one of the cardinals' glasses before being dragged back inside the Vatican.

However, apparently determined to continue his contentious address he reappeared seconds later, shouting incoherently, jabbing his finger and shaking his fist aggressively at the startled crowd. Climbing up onto a stone balustrade, he raised his cassock and appeared to be about to urinate until he was manhandled to the ground by several burly members of the Swiss Guard.

hypno
The Pope was then taken in a headlock from the balcony whilst Italian police moved into St Peter's Square and began dispersing the crowd.

Journalists were summoned to the Vatican for a press conference on Monday afternoon. A frail-looking and clearly uncomfortable Pope sat silently in dark glasses, taking occasional sips from a tin of Irn Bru whilst a Cardinal read from a prepared statement.
psycho
Reporters were told: "It has come to our attention that during yesterday's papal announcement there was a fault in the public address system which led to many of the Pope's words getting mixed up in the machinery and coming out of the speakers in the wrong order.

frenzy
"We have been assured by Vatican engineers that the fault will not recur, and the Pontiff's next speech will appear with all the words in the correct order."

This is not the first time that a papal address has led to controversy. During his Easter Sunday mass at St Peter's Basilica, a problem with the acoustics was blamed for John Paul II apparently suggesting that the Virgin Mary could perform a sex act upon him before stumbling from the lecturn and vomiting onto the floor.

http://www.viz.co.uk/articles.html?005

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5266763)
Frank Apisa wrote:
I don't see this in quite the black and white term some people (obviously you included) see it.

I've actually avoided using the vicious rhetoric you've complained of. I'm not as extreme as you imagine. I'm not the one planning a class action suit against Benedict, if one does take place then these 'principles' will be examined in a court of law.

I have not suggested that you have engaged in some of the more "vicious rhetoric", Izzy. I was directing my comment to the question of whether or not the pope engaged in a cover-up...and possible reasons for why he did...if he did.

I suspect he will never be brought to a court on any of these issues...but if he is sued and if jurisdiction and standing is found...we will see where it leads.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

The smear technique employed in that quote can be easily applied to anyone. It is lower than sarcasm in the hierarchy of wit. It's the grime in the cracks at the bottom of a barrel.

Would you mind if it was applied to you. Just for a start I could do a number on the Palestinians.

1 Reply

@spendius,

How about the owner of Southampton FC speaking off the record about the club and its fans?

Or Joyce having a go at the medical profession?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Looks like Mcllroy and Woods might not make it...This sucks...Mcllory was cut in the middle of his round...not sure if he used an illegal club or something...

0 Replies

@spendius,

I thought you liked Viz.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I do but it doesn't employ that technique.

I used to have a theory that it was written by Jesuits. I don't read it now. I read a borrowed copy and the guy stopped getting it. I didn't read all of it either. It was patchy but the best was excellent.

It portrayed the ladies as they actually are rather than as some fantasy designed to reassure men that they have not made a gigantic and catastrophic mistake.

"You can have me in the raw today" one specimen said to me defiantly as she stripped off the lingerie I had bought her. She was perfect mind you.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I do but it doesn't employ that technique.

Follow the link, it's from Viz.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

That might be why the guy stopped getting it. I was more into Zit.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Mcllroy dropped out because of a tooth ache...Woods finished E, E and is tied for 64th

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

His knees are still trembling a bit I assume.

1 Reply

@spendius,

He finished E again...The conditions must have gotten nasty for a bit there in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, there were guys who were E, -1, -2, -3...and now they seem to range between +4 and a few at -1...

0 Replies

Spade wrote:

What would you ask Jesus to do for you to prove he is the savior??

I suspect that you and I would differ in our interpretation of "salvation". From my perspective, Jesus may have been a historical figure, or he may have been entirely mythical (historical and mythical are also not strictly opposites). The same could be said of Socrates however, I have no logical problem with talking about what Jesus or Socrates "said".
I am no Biblical scholar or historian, I have done a little work using eSword http://www.e-sword.net/, which I would highly recommend if you have an interest in the "original" Greek or Hebrew texts.
My view of Jesus's message of salvation is very similar to the position of John Dominic Crossan. The salvation was a political/ethical message.
It was understood up to this point (in History) that the covenant with God's people meant something like "follow all the rules" only then God will deliver you from evil (oppression).
It was a bit like superstition. Why are we being punished? Because you didn't dot all the i's and cross all the t's, God is very particular and you must be perfect. This is a convenient explanation, because any outcome can be explained by it. It also leads to desperation (learned helplessness).
Jesus' message was, no, we've had it all wrong.
God want's us to work with him. The Kingdom of Heaven is upon us (not the Kingdom of heaven is being brought to us). It is our responsibility to make this (society) a Kingdom of Heaven.
A misunderstanding of this (I think) has lead to much of the "rapture" thinking in some fundamentalist denominations of Christianity. There is very little evidence that Jesus thought of a rapture in the sense in which it is popularized. There isn't even much evidence that he thought of "rapture" at all.
The message is take some responsibility, exercise that will, but do it for good.
Do it for love and not spite, do it for justice and not vengence, do it for "God", but not because you have a contractual obligation (the covenant), because that is what "God" is. God is love, God is justice, God is good.

[Matt says as an atheist.] Wink

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

Welcome to the thread mate! I think that that was very well said...I have heard that interpretation before, and I can say I find it very interesting...I think we do differ, because I do believe an actual kingdom does exist...and I feel that no one would need to ask Jesus anything to know it is him...by his presence alone...I think I get a good sense of why his message may have been to make our world Heaven, and not perceive the Kingdom of Heaven the way that most do...but then I am not so sure as to why God would set up laws, only to show that faith is the way...with Jesus, and not actions alone...if there is no actual physical realm...

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

My opinion is that if a Christian is "waiting around" for salvation, then they have missed the fundamental message. The message of the "good news" is not a call to go out and proselytize a new dogma. It was a call for transcending legalism. This was a radical notion, and you can see the evidence for it's danger to the status quo by the reaction of society (Pilot + Sanhedrin). He was not preaching new "rules" to replace the old "rules". Give unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's (old rules) but give unto God that which is God's (new principles). Yes you can break the old rules (Moses' Covenant and Roman Law) but only when those rules must be transcended for higher purpose.
Can you break the Sabbath to feed the hungry? Of course you can! "The Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath".
Do you have to allow Roman law to violate spiritual understanding? Not if the law actually does violate spiritual understanding (the new principles).
If there is a violation how do you oppose it? Do we take up arms?
Jesus told Peter to not pick up his sword. "Put your sword back into its sheath. Shall I not drink from the cup of suffering the Father has given me?"
Apparently that was very clearly not his suggestion (a lesson perhaps learned from John the Baptist). You change a society with ideas, you change a society by example. Violent opposition is often a very poor method of facilitating change.
Control and submission are not polar opposites, but they are both in a sense illusions.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

But I do agree that if Jesus Christ is God...I am sure he definitively tried to stress how important it is to make everyday count...and how important it is to treat people well, and do the moral actions...we all know we should...Kind of like a self-evaluation in Buddhism that we have discussed before...I definitively think that his words were contorted, or not fully understood...and were blown to proportions that it makes no difference what you do or who you are so long as you have faith...and I think that even if faith is the key to the door to Heaven...I can't imagine that Jesus would be well pleased with these views that it makes no difference what you do so long as you have faith itself...I do not think that Jesus would see that as maximizing ones own potential...even if they are saved...because what we do here, would most likely determine who we are there...if Heaven does actually exist...

0 Replies

Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know