What? I get no sauerkraut?

[Kurgan]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Wrong. My point is that it's wrong for the Fascist in Rome to endorse any scientific theory, simply because scientific theories are subject to change without advance notice, and the Fascist in Rome has in the past been unwilling to submit to this principle - which means that he should stay out of the scientific and political debate.

 

The fact that he may have gotten it right this time doesn't change the fundamental error in the way he reasons.

 

Without stating your specific objections I can't respond to anything. Calling someone a "fascist" means nothing except that they endorse fascism. But you and I both know that its become very fashionable (especially on the left) to label people one doesn't agree with (especially those on the right) as "nazis" "Hitler" etc. So you really have to explain specifically what the Pope is doing that you so disagree with and why, THEN we can talk.

 

If you have to MAKE UP stuff about somebody to attack them, it doesn't speak well of your opposition to them, does it?

 

As far as endorsing scientific theories it's possible to do that in a non-religious context. For example, the Pope can say he really likes the theory of relativity. That doesn't make it a religious dogma that then every Catholic has to believe or they are excommunicated, etc. etc. Rather, it's a statement that said scientific theory does not conflict with Catholic teaching. Otherwise it's just an opinion, just like anything else. The Pope can say he really likes Classical Music or spagetti too, and that's fine.

 

Church leaders in the past have endorsed scientific theories, such as the whole Gallileo affair, which involved Church endorsement of the Geocentric theory. This was obviously a mistake, because the theory was disproven, leaving egg on the faces of the leaders. However, it was never promulgated as dogma and (as Pope John Paul II's statements admit) his house-arrest and charges were illegal. The man wasn't a heretic, he was just being confrontational about a theory he was defending, which (it turns out) didn't conflict with the essential teachings anyway.

 

So yes, it would be prudent to bear this in mind when evaluating any scientific theory. But to say that this instance invalidates any religious leader ever saying "wow guys, this is a good theory, I like it!" isn't proven.

 

We've got countless people yelling at the Church to "accept modern science" (even in this thread itself, though in a misguided and confused manner), but you'd have it the other way, that the Church ignore science?

 

Surely your own religious affiliations flaw your perception. It's an extremely good description. It does not describe - and does not presume to describe - what goes on in the preachers' heads. Rather it presents the subject's experience of being faced with a pair of nutcases trying to convince him that their cock-and-bull story has any validity. As such it should provoke thought amongst those who preach. And - more importantly - should provide an insight into why some people feel that religion should be dismantled. Empathy is a good thing. If religion conveyed a little more of that, it would be a lot more civilised. Of course, it would also be a lot less prosperous.

 

Not sure what you mean here. Some specific charges would be nice, rather than a theory of craziness.

 

Or are you rather saying that anyone who would willingly be a part of a "supernaturalist" religion is essentially deluded? If so, then we can stop debating now. ; )

 

Without specific examples it just sounds like you're saying "they're a bunch of really bad men, and I can't tell you why I just know it's true."

 

The "story of Hank" is obviously a humor piece from an atheist (or agnostic, to be fair), bashing door-to-door preachers, so I wouldn't expect it to be a fully developed argument. That anyone would use it as such to me is pretty sad, since it makes a poor argument at best. Hence my comments about "strawmen."

 

 

Ah, well, it's more of a title really. He's head of state in the last unreformed Axis country. That would make him the leader of a Fascist country - hence the title.

 

You're saying that Italy is a fascist state? And that this makes Vatican City (and independent city-state that just happens to lie within the territory of the larger state) also a fascist state? Interesting theory, but I'd like to see your proof...

 

 

Never said that he was... But some of his Cardinals are clearly off their rockers.

 

I'd also love to hear the specific charges against these individuals myself...

 

Blanket accusations are fine for political rallies, but this is the Senate Chambers remember? It's about debates, and hopefully honest ones where we at least try to have some semblance of depth...

[Kurgan]

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

John Paul II is not a fascist. He's the first pope who's actually open to other people and other religions(well, he doesn't condemn them). He also is the first to meet with other religious leaders and tell them to pray together for world peace.

 

He's not an idiot.

 

 

P.S: I'm in no-way associated to the Catholic church.

 

He's been quite heavy on the ecumenical stuff throughout his career (and he's caught flak from plenty of Catholics and non-Catholics for it too). While there's the specter of the sex-abuse scandal on his watch, overall he's really done a fine job I think. But one can't say that he's the first reform minded pope in recent years. Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council out of the blue, and really opened things up back in the 60's. The stuff John Paul II does today would have been unheard of if not for those early reforms back then.

 

One should also remember that the modern ecumenical movement was begun within Protestantism, and just about everyone was shocked when the Catholic Church got into it. I'm all for progress, breaking down the barriers to communion that have been erected over the centuries because of pride or misunderstanding.

[Kurgan]

Originally posted by Hiroki

One Pope did state that the earth was 2,000 years old. I am not sure which, but I am not going to believe what any other Pope says now. o.O

 

Though John Paul II is pretty cool.

 

Until you can provide the quote, I'm inclined to call BS on this one. The "Young Earth Creation" theory traditionally postulates a "6,000 year old earth," which is based on (IIRC) the speculation of Bishop Ussher in the middle ages (he thought he determined the age of the earth based on adding up the ages of the figures mentioned in Bible). Obviously some time has passed since then, and so while you hear the "6,000 year" number being kicked around, modern day YEC's seem to favor a number closer to 10,000 years.

 

Which is still baloney as far as all of modern science (and just plain common sense) is concerned, but that's a side issue.

 

The YEC theory seemed to have surged in popularity in the 19th century, when certain "fundamentalists" (the term originally was used to refer to people who took certain basic "fundamental" christian beliefs for granted like the virgin birth, miracles of Jesus, inspiration of the Bible, etc, but has come to mean "biblical literalism" and even that term isn't fully correct since nobody takes 100% of the bible literally, even if they say they do) began to assert that science was opposed to faith, and thus fell back on what they considered to be the "true" source of ALL wisdom (not just religious or ethical wisdom), the Bible.

 

 

 

For at least the last 40 years the Vatican has been officially friendly to evolutionary theory, Big Bang Cosmology, and modern science in general (with the caveat that it should always promote the dignity of the human person and not deny the possibility of God's existence, of course). But I've never heard of a Pope claiming the world was "2,000 years old."

 

If this were a modern pope saying it (the "2,000 year" claim), that means he thought the world wasn't around before Jesus walked the earth, which would be utterly nonesensical. If it was a Pope at the time of the Apostles (even St. Peter himself) that would imply that creation creation happened around the time of Abraham (what about Noah??). Even using the Bible alone, taken literally, this couldn't be true, because Adam supposedly lived over 900 years, and he was dead by the time Noah lived, and Noah died before Abraham and he was over 300.

 

Anyway, *I* don't take the ages of the patriarchs in the Bible literally, and neither do most Christians (including Pope John Paul II). But even if you did ignore science and claim the Bible was word for word true even applying to "scientific facts", a 2,000 year old earth wouldn't make sense. And that's what YEC's claim to be doing... going JUST by what the Bible says, and ignoring science when there is a conflict with their interpretation. Though of course I'd argue that they're merely extrapolating from Bishop Ussher's faulty theories anyway (supposedly he predicted the end of the world in 1996 or 1997 also based on his 6,000 year theory).

 

So find the quote of the Pope, cardinal, archbishop, deacon or altar boy who said this and then we'll have something to debate about...

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Kurgan

Calling someone a "fascist" means nothing except that they endorse fascism.

 

Ah, why do I call the Pope a Fascist? The explanation is simple, really: The Vatican was an Axis country during the War. In every Axis country except the Papacy, the central leadership was rounded up and killed or imprisoned. The Papacy never made this cleen-up! (Which would have involved the Pope of the time, each and every Cardinal, as well as a fair few Bishops.) This means that the Pope of today is the leader of a Fascist country. Which is quite a scandal, if you consider it for more than 3 seconds.

 

You wouldn't trust Göring, Speer, et al to elect the BND's first Chancellor, would you?

 

But you and I both know that its become very fashionable (especially on the left) to label people one doesn't agree with (especially those on the right) as "nazis" "Hitler" etc.

 

Which is a tendency that I dislike, primarily because it obscures the real criminals, like dubya, Paul II, et al.

 

So you really have to explain specifically what the Pope is doing that you so disagree with and why, THEN we can talk.

 

Where to start, where to start? Well, for one you have his utterly disastrous policy on birth control and HIV containment.

 

For another you have the Vatican's immature position regarding the rights of women and sexual minorities.

 

And to top the list off, we have the Papacy's imperialistic interference with the policies of the European Union and the American 'elections.'

 

And then you have some of the older stuff: Withholding archeological and historical findings, denying historians access to their archives.

 

Latest, of course, is their coverup of the systematic sexual abuse of minors by their clergy.

 

As far as endorsing scientific theories it's possible to do that in a non-religious context. [...] That doesn't make it a religious dogma that then every Catholic has to believe [...] Rather, it's a statement that said scientific theory does not conflict with Catholic teaching. Otherwise it's just an opinion, just like anything else.

 

But as a public figurehead he should shut up about his personal opinions. If dubya said the he 'really didn't like the theory of Evolution', you'd interpret it as a political statement too, wouldn't you?

 

Rather, it's a statement that said scientific theory does not conflict with Catholic teaching.

 

This is an interesting way of thinking. Because that means that the Pope can also say that a theory does conflict with the tenents of Catholicism, thus pitting religion against science.

 

Church leaders in the past have endorsed scientific theories, such as the whole Gallileo affair [...] However, it was never promulgated as dogma and (as Pope John Paul II's statements admit) his house-arrest and charges were illegal.

 

Fat help. That's kinda like hearing a neo-nazi saying that the Holocaust might have been a bad idea. Can't that man spell 'hypocrite'?

 

We've got countless people yelling at the Church to "accept modern science" (even in this thread itself, though in a misguided and confused manner), but you'd have it the other way, that the Church ignore science?

 

I would have the Church teach its followers to think critically and independently. As long as it doesn't do that, it should keep quiet. Having the Pope say that this or that theory is probably correct is - at best - irrelevant, because it is either an attempt to gain a foothold in the scientific debate - a place where the Church is not qualified to be, not by a long shot - or it is an attempt to convince people to accept the conclusions that science comes up with. The former is an offensive move, in more than one sense of the word, while the latter shows a lack of understanding of the scientific method: You are not supposed to believe scientific theories. You're supposed to understand them.

 

Not sure what you mean here. Some specific charges would be nice, rather than a theory of craziness.

 

Or are you rather saying that anyone who would willingly be a part of a "supernaturalist" religion is essentially deluded? If so, then we can stop debating now. ; )

 

What I am saying is that the POV in the piece is that of a person faced with a couple of fanatics. To that person, the fanatic seem like lunatics. That is a perfectly valid POV for a story - as would be the opposite (where the POV was centered on the fanatics). This means that the purpose of the piece is to convey an impression rather than a psychiatric diagnosis.

 

The "story of Hank" is obviously a humor piece from an atheist (or agnostic, to be fair), bashing door-to-door preachers, so I wouldn't expect it to be a fully developed argument. That anyone would use it as such to me is pretty sad, since it makes a poor argument at best. Hence my comments about "strawmen."

 

But you miss the point. It is not used as an argument, but rather as a message. And the message is pretty clear: Door-to-door preachers come off as deranged nutters to the average citizen. They may not be nutters, but that's the impression they leave in other people's mind.

 

You're saying that Italy is a fascist state? And that this makes Vatican City (and independent city-state that just happens to lie within the territory of the larger state) also a fascist state?

 

No - as you yourself point out Italy and the Papacy are two seperate entities. I did not accuse Italy of being Fascist. A little corrupt, maybe, and certainly the Papacy's little waggling puppy. But Fascist? No.

 

I'd also love to hear the specific charges against these individuals myself...[/b]

 

You have one guy - can't remember his name but you can probably look it up - running what was until recently called the Holy Office. I am sure that you are familiar with the history of this institution. The very fact that this office has not been dismantled is testament to the unwillingness of the Vatican to reform.

 

Then you have the multiple homophobic and misogynistic bulles, that have been cleared at Cardinal level - again I can't give you names (all those Italian names sound alike) but they are all available for public view, so you can look that up yourself too.

 

Dig a little in the archives of some of the more serious newspapers from around the world, and you'll find numerous other articles.