In defence of The Pope

[MontyB]

What you say would be true if it were not for the fact that a large part of the population believes that he interprets the will of the man in the sky who runs their lives.

When a person occupies a position of power, they should not knowingly use that power in such a way as to deliberately encourage millions of people to neglect a simple method of perhaps saving their own lives.

If such a message had been given by any one else they would have been castigated by every civilised country in the world.

I think this is most likely the answer to the question "Does belief in religion cause wars" the fact that you have a series of religions that cannot and will not tolerate (we even have sects within religions that wont tolerate each other) each other who are all devoted to maintaining somewhat primitive styles of life then wars are inevitable.

Lets face it for all the grandstanding done by the world about its "enlightened" religions at there core each of them is lead by a man that is stuck mentally somewhere between 0 and 750AD.

 

[Rob Henderson]

I think this is most likely the answer to the question "Does belief in religion cause wars" the fact that you have a series of religions that cannot and will not tolerate (we even have sects within religions that wont tolerate each other) each other who are all devoted to maintaining somewhat primitive styles of life then wars are inevitable.

Lets face it for all the grandstanding done by the world about its "enlightened" religions at there core each of them is lead by a man that is stuck mentally somewhere between 0 and 750AD.

There is a vast difference between faith and religion. Religion is nothing more than claiming that your faith is better than someone else's faith, and because there are several of you who share the same views, you are OBVIOUSLY the right ones. [/sarcasm]

I would much rather prefer it if religion was done away with and people had their individual faiths.

 

[MontyB]

There is a vast difference between faith and religion. Religion is nothing more than claiming that your faith is better than someone else's faith, and because there are several of you who share the same views, you are OBVIOUSLY the right ones. [/sarcasm]

I would much rather prefer it if religion was done away with and people had their individual faiths.

I don't disagree with you on this as everyone has some sort of faith from the most religious believing "god" was just there to the scientist who thinks that the big bang just happened, hell it even takes a certain degree of faith to believe there is no god, the fact that faith and religion are not one in the same though also creates friction.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Exactly. And that's why I hate the hierarchy that the Roman Catholic church has created... Aside from the fact that they have studied theology more than you, what makes the Pope any holier than you or me?

It's one of the things that is driving me away from the Catholic faith.

 

[MontyB]

Exactly. And that's why I hate the hierarchy that the Roman Catholic church has created... Aside from the fact that they have studied theology more than you, what makes the Pope any holier than you or me?

It's one of the things that is driving me away from the Catholic faith.

This problem is not only one for the Catholic church though all religions face it with most organised religions of the last 1000 years the only commitment you needed to make was a financial one, kings, queens and tinpot dictators alike have been given leeway by churches to slaughter people not because they were right but because they were rich and powerful.

 

[Rob Henderson]

This problem is not only one for the Catholic church though all religions face it with most organised religions of the last 1000 years the only commitment you needed to make was a financial one, kings, queens and tinpot dictators alike have been given leeway by churches to slaughter people not because they were right but because they were rich and powerful.

Agreed, but let's face it, it's most pronounced in the Catholic church; if simply because they've been around the longest. No other denomination of Christianity has an equivalent to the Pope.

 

[senojekips]

So you deny that this was a low accusation of racism directed at me? LOL.

A person or even a number of persons is not a "race". You may feel that you are, but I'm afraid you are only a very small part of a race and I too am a member of your "race" (I am assuming here that you are white). So to be racist, I would have to hate "my own" race??

I have never referred to you as a racist.

you accuse me of displaying racism, that to me is an accusation

Careful, a little racism showing again.

I have never accused you or anyone else of Homophobia.

It was merely another example of these "labels" that some of us try to use to denigrate others who disagree with them.

Anti-semitism? I have made no secret of my opinion of you on this score, and why. The fact is that you do not realise it.

I never recognise that which is merely the opinion of a fool. just another of your "labelling" exercises, which fails as have the others.

Your accusations of cowardice should be referred to you mirror. Bear in mind that being an empty vessel making the most noise does not amount to bravery.

Mere denial is not the answer.

It is you who use the racist card by inference et al when it suits you.

Disproven, see answer#1.

I cannot recall ever 'falling on my duff',

Can't see the forest for the trees huh?

Yes and you should take that on board.

What are you blathering about, it was my comment. Read what is said, not what you "think" is being said.

It does't fall to me to so, as you made the wild accusation of religion being 'medieval clap-trap',

Obviously,... I made the statement,... why do you feel the need to restate the obvious? You will need far more than constant repetition to make your argument, which is the reason i often just skim through your endless rants.

Once again you hurl accusations of racism which you cannot justify, but I expect no more of you.

It appears your short term memory is failing. It was you who made the comment accusing me of being racist not the reverse. See answer #2. with your own quote. (Shakes head)

There is no racism nor nationalism here, as is evidenced by the fact that I have no such "beefs" with you fellow countrymen on this forum (or for that matter anywhere else) Let's be honest, you are just miffed because I have dented your pride by putting up the truth about the subject at hand. Well, I can't help that, nor do I apologise for it, the truth is self evident and whether you like it or not, I will tell the truth as it is seen to be.

So, how about, we get back to the point instead of you continually trying to get me to massage your damaged ego. To this end I will refrain from further comment unless it pertains to the subject of this thread.

 

[Del Boy]

Senojekips.

Taking a look at your last, I understand your urgent need to exit stage left; nothing worthy there. But for the record, when I told you that in my opinion you are anti-semetic I clearly specified the boxes you ticked. It is on record. I have never played the race card, and merely deflected your weak inference on the subject of AIDS and bouced it back to you. Different story then, ain't it? Screaming 'racist ' again, eh?

To remind you, for the record, and I can simply rely on facts as always, here is your record in that field; you developed an urgent need to exit stage left on that occasion, too.

***
Trying to play the race card - 'It's a coward's way out'- claims Senojekips

As I replied, I have never played the race card against him.


So let us take a little lookee :-


Jan 9 2008

"Did I not say (TWICE) that your argument is that of a thinly disguised racist? NO!! don't answer, believe it or not, I already know the answer'"

"Again, Your argument is flawed in that it is the argument of a thinly disguised racist on this subject. (Repeated for the second, or is it the third time.)"

"It is MY considered opinion that on this subject, you are no more than a scaremonger and very thinly disguised racist."



TO WHICH I RESPONDED:-


Senojekips has disgustingly accused me of being being a racist, to which I take the greatest offence.


I say to him - PROVE IT.


ANSWER CAME THERE NONE ! - THE COWARD'S WAY - according to the edicts of Senojekips.
__________________
.

I am an extreme moderate. - Ben. Franklin

 

[senojekips]

I think this is most likely the answer to the question "Does belief in religion cause wars" the fact that you have a series of religions that cannot and will not tolerate (we even have sects within religions that wont tolerate each other) each other who are all devoted to maintaining somewhat primitive styles of life then wars are inevitable.

Lets face it for all the grandstanding done by the world about its "enlightened" religions at there core each of them is lead by a man that is stuck mentally somewhere between 0 and 750AD.

My point precisely, although I did give them the benefit of a further 800 years of developing their constant need to fight and bicker amongst themselves.

None of this "claptrap" has anything to do with a god, any god, (there are so many) it's all about power (control) and money, one only has to Google "Church Wealth"

 

[senojekips]

So, how about, we get back to the point instead of you continually trying to get me to massage your damaged ego. To this end I will refrain from further comment unless it pertains to the subject of this thread.

You didn't read my answer did you DB. On topic please, all of your argument has been shot down several times.

 

[Del Boy]

You didn't read my answer did you DB. On topic please, all of your argument has been shot down several times.

Kindly cut the rubbish - I have posted a great deal on topic regarding the AIDS issue, and your introduction of religion as 'medieval clap-trap'. I have nothing to legitimately counter those. But of course, the opinion of the Harvard AIDS expert can in no way match your own. You prefer graffiti.

You are simply dancing in the dark, absolutely unenlightened. You have tried to ignore my take on Darwin and God, nevertheless I will have just a little more patience with you, as the matter is of some importance:-



Expertise summary

Lecturer
School of Humanities, Faculty of Arts
Role(s): Lecturer, Academic

Staff listing ​

conor.cunningham@nottingham.ac.uk ​

He was born in Belfast and only left that idyll to study Law at the University of Kent. There, he came under the influence of the Catholic Marxist, David Mclellan who, despite holding the Chair in Political Theory, decided to also read for a Law degree. Following graduation, Conor moved to the University of Dundee to study for an M. Phil., in Philosophy under the supervision of the Jean-François Lyotard and Giles Deleuze scholar, James Williams. On completing his M. Phil. with distinction, Conor went to the University of Cambridge to read for the Diploma in Theology. Upon completion of this, he was awarded a British Academy Studentship to study for a Ph.D. Initially doing so under the supervision of John Milbank, but when he took up a Chair at the University of Virginia, Professor Graham Ward took over the mantle. After writing a book on nihilism (Genealogy of Nihilism), which is being translated into Spanish, Conor is now finishing a book entitled Evolution, to be published in a new series, by Eerdmans, called Interventions. This book offers a critique of Ultra-Darwinism, and ontological naturalism, whilst at the same providing a positive reading of Darwin’s theory of evolution. After the project on evolution, he is developing some previous work into a book on the philosopher Alain Badiou, which bears the polemical title: Badiou: A Very Critical Introduction. In addition to being series editor of Interventions, along with Peter Candler, he is also the editor of the series Veritas, published by SCM. Conor’s research interests include metaphysics, philosophical theology, philosophy of religion, and phenomenology. As well as lecturing in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies, he is also assistant-director of the Centre of Theology and Philosophy, University of Nottingham (www.theologyphilosophycentre.co.uk).


As many of you may be aware, the BBC has launched a 'Darwin Season' on both radio and television to commemorate the double anniversary that falls this year for Charles Darwin: 200 years since his birth and 150 years since the publication of his groundbreaking book-The Origin of Species. The received view of evolution's relation with religion is that the former undermines the latter. Philosopher and theologian Conor Cunningham from the Centre of Theology and Philosophy, University of Nottingham, says this is simply nonsense.
Cunningham who has just completed a new book-Evolution: Darwin's Pious Idea, which will be published in the autumn, was approached by the BBC and asked to write and present a one hour documentary exploring Darwinism's apparent impact on Christianity. According to Conor, the cultural war between religion and evolution, most vocally represented by American creationists and scientists such as Richard Dawkins is completely unnecessary and more than that, it is damaging for both religion and science. In his documentary - Did Darwin Kill God? - Conor travels around England, America and Israel interviewing philosophers, Bible scholars and scientists in a bid to discover how this destructive conflict arose, and in the process concluding that it is based on bad science, inaccurate history, inadequate philosophy and even worse theology.
The main purpose of the documentary is to offer a critique of both Christian fundamentalists who reject evolution, doing so, Conor argues, because they display a complete lack of understanding about the Christian tradition, and Darwinian fundamentalists - those such as Dawkins who take Darwin's theory beyond the domain of science and apply it to all aspects of life, and is so doing undermine the very cogency of evolution as a science. Consequently, Darwinists such as Dawkins are as great a threat to evolution as are creationists. In addition Conor seeks to remind viewers of the orthodox understanding of Christianity's God, for it is this understanding that makes opposition between Darwin's theory of evolution and Christianity not only misplaced but impossible.




Chew on that for a while; I have bigger battles to attend to. Get it? Got it? Good! Say thank-you, then.

 

[senojekips]

Kindly cut the rubbish - I have posted a great deal on topic regarding the AIDS issue, and your introduction of religion as 'medieval clap-trap'. I have nothing to legitimately counter those. But of course, the opinion of the Harvard AIDS expert can in no way match your own.

You are simply dancing in the dark, absolutely unelightened. You have tried to ignore my take on Darwin and God, nevertheless I will have just a little more patience with you, as the matter is of some importance:-

Faff, faff and more off topic faff....

Too long DB,.... way too long, and absolutely nothing to do with my answer (Post #4)

The subject of this thread is "In defence of the Pope", to which I answered that he has no defence, he has spoken as a religious leader on a subject that will effectively condemn more Africans to a long and painful death to appease the tenets of the Roman catholic church. This type of (un christian) hypocrisy is typical of religion per se, and it comes from the leader of what has to be the largest "christian" church.

If there were a christ, we would be spinning in his grave to hear such "clap trap"

Living in the vatican makes this man no more a "christian" than standing in my garage makes me an automobile.

 

[Del Boy]

Too long DB,.... way too long, and absolutely nothing to do with my answer (Post #4)

Here it is again, without the big words. The first four words deal with your answer.

"Kindly cut the rubbish - I have posted a great deal on topic regarding the AIDS issue, and your introduction of religion as 'medieval clap-trap'. I have seen nothing to legitimately counter those. But of course, the opinion of the Harvard AIDS expert can in no way match your own."


The rest covers my response to your new post. You started describing religion as 'medieval clap-trap,' so you must expect response. Of course, that completely stymies you , so now you want off the hook. You are a just an unenlightened dinosaur on these subjects IMHO.

My opening post on this thread dealt with all that same old graffiti you are posting.

Expert enlgihtened opinion is obviously something you are not capable of digesting,

As you have dismissed it all -'Too long! Much too long' LOL. Grown up writing too!

 

[03USMC]

The ANC distributed millions of them in various townships in Cape Town, only problems was, they (the ANC workers) stapled the instructions to use them, through the condom.

I know I should not have laughed at that.......but I did, just proves some people are to stupid to be given the simpleist task.

 

[Rob Henderson]

You were NOT the only one there, boss.


'Sides, don't instructions come on the condom itself?

 

[Del Boy]

The Pope is a man with a big responsibilty. After that great charismatic leader, John Paul 11, man of the people, on whose watch the Soviet Union fell, the Berlin Wall came down, died, The Vatican had a big decision to make. They had to avoid a split with the choice of a new Pope.

The ytried to make the safest choice; a most experienced, most learned, the greatest theologian in their midst. Pope Benedict.

A man of such talents can only express the truth as he sees it, for the good of mankind, as he sees it.

Here is a careful balanced explanation of his motivation:-


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/mar/18/aids-pope-africa-condoms

 

[Rob Henderson]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. We could shove all the Trojans in the world down Africa's throat, but unless we sat in the room and watched them use the condom effectively, then they might as well not be wearing the condom at all for all we know. There's a big difference between using condoms and "promoting condom usage." I don't think the Pope is EXACTLY right on the use of condoms in Africa, because to say that condoms don't prevent the disease and only aggravate the problem is not true. But I do see where the writer of this article makes a good point... It's that casual attitude towards sex that makes it easier for the disease to spread.

I think this is more of a splicing job by the original article... We would need to see the whole statement to make sense of this quote. Because using what Mr. Ivereigh says, it makes more sense.

 

[Del Boy]

Right Rob, I'm sure we all have our own opinions on this, including among Catholics, and our opinions can glide a little this way and that under such difficult circumstances. The Pope has no such benefits.

 

[senojekips]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. We could shove all the Trojans in the world down Africa's throat, but unless we sat in the room and watched them use the condom effectively, then they might as well not be wearing the condom at all for all we know. There's a big difference between using condoms and "promoting condom usage." I don't think the Pope is EXACTLY right on the use of condoms in Africa, because to say that condoms don't prevent the disease and only aggravate the problem is not true. But I do see where the writer of this article makes a good point... It's that casual attitude towards sex that makes it easier for the disease to spread.

None of this justifies what was said, we, the so called civilised peoples of the world have an obligation to better educate those less fortunate and less educated than ourselves. The effect of what was said has at best muddied the water and at worst reinforced these peoples ignorance with deadly results. It has set back HIV/AIDS education by at least 10 years

I think this is more of a splicing job by the original article... We would need to see the whole statement to make sense of this quote. Because using what Mr. Ivereigh says, it makes more sense.

This story has been reported by pretty much every major news agency in the world. I don't know that any of them have quoted the pope verbatim, but if you care to Google the story it appears that they all interpreted what was said the same way.

His statement that AIDS should be fought by abstinence rather than condoms, is a good indication of his poor grasp of human nature, especially among the uneducated and poor of Africa. Even the RC priests who take on abstinence knowing full well what they are doing, fall by the wayside from time to time. How can we expect people who still believe in tribal witchcraft to take this onboard. In a country where men believe that the raping of a virgin will cure AIDS, the last thing that is needed is for the leader of a large percentage of the world's chrisians to send the message that condoms cannot help.

If a condom saves just one human life, their use is justified without reservation, and I think that they would do far more than that.

 

[Rob Henderson]

None of this justifies what was said, we, the so called civilised peoples of the world have an obligation to better educate those less fortunate and less educated than ourselves. The effect of what was said has at best muddied the water and at worst reinforced these peoples ignorance with deadly results. It has set back HIV/AIDS education by at least 10 years.

Hardly... I wonder how many people in Africa (where education in the disease is most necessary) have even heard about this story yet...I agree we need to educate those less fortunate than us, but just because we're teaching them about safe sex doesn't mean they can run out and screw everything with legs because they're using a condom. Abstinence remains, and will probably always remain, the most effective way to prevent the spreading of ANY sexual disease. Educating people on safe sex will not change that fact, nor will it make abstinence any less effective.

This story has been reported by pretty much every major news agency in the world. I don't know that any of them have quoted the pope verbatim, but if you care to Google the story it appears that they all interpreted what was said the same way.

I'm sure, but it might not even be quoting problem... It might be a translation problem... Sometimes essential meanings of words and phrases get lost from language to language.

His statement that AIDS should be fought by abstinence rather than condoms, is a good indication of his poor grasp of human nature, especially among the uneducated and poor of Africa. Even the RC priests who take on abstinence knowing full well what they are doing, fall by the wayside from time to time. How can we expect people who still believe in tribal witchcraft to take this onboard. In a country where men believe that the raping of a virgin will cure AIDS, the last thing that is needed is for the leader of a large percentage of the world's chrisians to send the message that condoms cannot help.

Again, I highly doubt that the Pope really meant that condoms will not help. I find it much easier to believe that he was saying that just because condoms are effective is no reason to teach these people that it's okay to have casual sex all the time... Condoms are NOT 100% effective, and it has been proven as such. A sophomore music major at my college was on birth control AND her boyfriend used a condom, she's 3 weeks along now. Wanna tell HER than condoms are the be-all-end-all of birth control/disease prevention? In a sense, condoms DO aggravate the problem, because condoms promotes a much MUCH lighter ideal of sex. In this day and age, sex is no longer considered a special thing... People have sex all the time and never speak to one another again... Sex is losing it's value, and as such, sexually transmitted diseases are becoming much more problematic... Not only in the back woods of Africa, but EVERYWHERE. It is not isolated to these tribes in the Congo... It is in civilized nations all over the globe. I'd go as far as to say that your nation probably has a higher STD rate now than it did 20 years ago, same as the continent of Africa...

If a condom saves just one human life, their use is justified without reservation, and I think that they would do far more than that.

Agreed, but like I said before... Just because we promote the use of condoms, doesn't mean we should throw abstinence out the window. Condoms were readily available when I was a younger kid, first learning about sex... But I chose abstinence. Why? Because it was part of my belief system. I didn't do it for fear of "my ***** falling off" or any fear-mongering like that... I did it because I felt sex should be a special act, saved for a special person. I'm not saying wait till marriage... I didn't... But I found someone I thought was special enough to share that connection with, and shared it.... But, again, as I said before, this thought process is virtually non-existent in the 21st century and humanity will continue to be plagued by STDs until sex is thought of as more than something that feels good.