What was so great about the Pope?

Thanks...and a few thoughts

Would like to thank everyone for maintaining a reasonable stance on this thread - I have only needed to intervene once and while this is in fact a boating forum and therefore not the most obvious platform for such a debate I nevertheless wish that more of the controversial threads could be conducted in similar fashion with an attempt at reasoned arguments and statements being more obvious that thread drift and personal abuse.

While I try to keep personal values and beliefs in check when administering these forums I would like to contribute something of a more personal nature here:

[ QUOTE ]
What was so great about the Pope?

[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting question - while I have grown to appreciate the value of more formal forms of church worship in my more mature years I am cautious of symbolism and the Roman Catholic faith is not an area I am well placed to comment upon - neither have I closely watched the actions of this pope over the years. However one answer I would give is that the very nature of the Pope's recent illness and death and its huge media coverage has apparently caused a few people to pause and think on here about more spiritual things.

I feel that boating is entirely in keeping with the spiritual, the very experience of getting away from it all placing one a lot closer to the elements and a lot further away from daily dross. For me the whole concept of Master Under God is a major part of the appeal. But at another level boating appears to be ever more mirroring the more hedonistic and shallower elements of society and so it's nice to get a reminder that people operate at deeper levels too.

If the events of the past few days have served as a reminder of that I for one am grateful.

[ QUOTE ]
Its a sign of the times, isn't it. If some of the uninformed, bigoted criticisms of the Catholic Church and its leaders made on this forum had been made instead of, say, Islam, this thread would have been pulled and Das Boot and others would be facing charges.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a fair point, one that also recently arose over the BBC and its airing of the Jerry Springer Opera episode, which went ahead despite over 60,000 pre-screening complaints. Again it's a difficult call to leave some of these posts live - I personally find some of them offensive but on the other hand I also recognise that if the Christian church is to find relevance in a deeply untrusting and cynical world then it is going to have to withstand the toughest scrutiny and criticism of its whole history, notwithstanding whatever treatments are handed out to other beliefs and religions. Whether that should be allowed to extend to outright blasphemy is another matter - although clearly our legislative structure here in the UK is not too concerned about that in this day and age.

[ QUOTE ]
I find it extraordinary that anyone can believe in something that has absolutely no shred of evidence to support it...

[/ QUOTE ]
Extraordinary seems to be to be a remarkably accurate word to describe faith. I would entirely agree that faith defies 21st Century logic, but it does also far surpass the mere level of being a comfort blanket for those who claim a tangible sense of the presence of God, whatever denomination they call home, to the extent that they should be able to offer proof in the very manner of their lives. As has been very adequately thrashed out here, that doesn't always work , but there are good people out there for whom it does.
 
Erm .. must admit I'm finding it difficult to see what point you're actually trying to make.

I answered your question now why do'nt you attempt to answer mine and justify your statments that I'm a bigot?
 
erm I am obviously failing to follow you. However I did answer your questiions, now why do'nt you answer the 2 two questions you are resolutely avoiding.

1) What statement have I made that infer I am anti catholic?
2) What statement have i made that are factually incorrect

oh and you can answer a 3rd one if you want

3) What were the achievemnts of JPII that would merit him being renamed JP the Great?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Erm .. must admit I'm finding it difficult to see what point you're actually trying to make.

I answered your question now why do'nt you attempt to answer mine and justify your statments that I'm a bigot?

[/ QUOTE ]
Try
[ QUOTE ]

the established churches have in fact very little to do with religion, they are the legacies of corrupt powerbrokers

large parts of Mark were excised because it did'nt suit the church at the time

churches of the time selected, edited and amended the ones that suited their own personal agendas and got rid of the ones they did'nt like.

The net consequence was that Christianity became very different from what it's inspiror intended


[/ QUOTE ]
What makes you bigotted is the total lack of balance in your posts. You seem to have the agenda of being purely anti-catholic - even worse attibuting to all christianity across all time the failings of one branch at some time.

I would contest the accuracy of the statements I've quoted above - but even were they accurate it is the extremely one-sided view you are portraying
 
[ QUOTE ]
erm I am obviously failing to follow you. However I did answer your questiions, now why do'nt you answer the 2 two questions you are resolutely avoiding.

1) What statement have I made that infer I am anti catholic?
2) What statement have i made that are factually incorrect

oh and you can answer a 3rd one if you want

3) What were the achievemnts of JPII that would merit him being renamed JP the Great?

[/ QUOTE ]
1) Are you seriously suggesting that you are not anti-catholic? A statement being non-sentient cannot be said to infer anything.
2) I've highlighted them elsewhere - but anyway bigotry is about intolerance and the inability to see both sides.
3) What makes you think that I think he does merit being renamed "JP the Great"?
 
None of these statements are anti catholic because actually if you take the trouble to engage eyes & brain you will note I am talking about established churches .. of whatever nature, the church and the state were inextricably intertwined. Other statemnts are factual. Why do'nt you counter with a reasoned factual counter argument (as Nickel did) rather than a personal attack.

Still waiting for answers ..
 
[ QUOTE ]
None of these statements are anti catholic because actually if you take the trouble to engage eyes & brain you will note I am talking about established churches .. of whatever nature, the church and the state were inextricably intertwined. Other statemnts are factual. Why do'nt you counter with a reasoned factual counter argument (as Nickel did) rather than a personal attack.

Still waiting for answers ..

[/ QUOTE ]
Err - and exactly what is your definition of established churches? Does it include the catholic church? If so then being anti-established churches will automatically make you anti-catholic.

It is a characteristic of a bigot that they are usually blind to their own bigotry, and a definition of a bigot that they cannot understand the point of view of others.

You saying that something is factual doesn't make it so. And even if all your statements were factual you could still hold bigotted opinions.

There is no point trying to enter a reasoned argument with a bigot because it is precisely their inability to comprehend two sides of an argument that makes them bigotted.

For the avoidance of doubt let me make it clear that my statements on the nature of bigottry are not necessarily intended to apply that they do apply to Jimi, but rather to explain why discussions based purely on facts are inappropriate when dealing with the issue of bigotry
 
" It is a characteristic of a bigot that they are usually blind to their own bigotry, and a definition of a bigot that they cannot understand the point of view of others."

Er....... pot and kettle


Sorry to jump in

Ian
 
Pirrot I'm still waiting for a reasoned counter argument and facts and proper answers, anymore retorts of that nature and I'll be hitting "the ignore this user" button on you
 
The Da Vinci Code was written as a work of fiction by it's author who clearly describes it as such. The gospels were written by their authors as a record of events and even if you don't believe it, much of what is written is historically verifiable.
 
Re: Re. Pierrot

I find Jimi's comments to be well informed, reasoned argument expressed calmly and cogently - hardly characteristic of bigotry. Just because his stance does not coincide with your own does not make him a bigot. However, resorting to name-calling does nothing to further the credibility of your own point of view.
 
Re: Thanks...and a few thoughts

[ QUOTE ]
...if the Christian church is to find relevance in a deeply untrusting and cynical world then it is going to have to withstand the toughest scrutiny and criticism of its whole history, notwithstanding whatever treatments are handed out to other beliefs and religions. Whether that should be allowed to extend to outright blasphemy is another matter - although clearly our legislative structure here in the UK is not too concerned about that in this day and age...

[/ QUOTE ]

Christian religion is based on the principle that it should be challenged and scrutinised and become stonger by maintaining it's stance. Many modern manifestations of christianity have become weaker by not being able to stand up to that scrutiny and criticism - they change what they stand for to try and become popular. This subsequently weakens them because no one really knows what they stand for anymore. The Catholic church, particularly through John Paul II have held their stance on some very controversial and unpopular issues.
 
[ QUOTE ]
One example quoted by Bill Bryson in "A Short History of Nearly Everything" is a protein called collagen. A protein is a selection of amino acids strung together. To make collagen you have to string 1055 amino acids together in exactly the right order. The statistical probability of this happening, randomly, is nil. ... If science cant explain it, only faith remains.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which just goes to show that Bill is not a geneticist, and doesn't understand evolution. Collagen would not have been formed in it's current structure in one go. It would have evolved bit by bit over tens of millions of years, thus reducing that statistical chance to something quite realistic.

Collagen is quite a simple protein - if you want to see wonderful, have a look at the streaming of cells in a human embryo to create the neural tube that is the precursor to the spinal cord - now that is wonderful
 
[ QUOTE ]

Err - and exactly what is your definition of established churches? Does it include the catholic church? If so then being anti-established churches will automatically make you anti-catholic.

It is a characteristic of a bigot that they are usually blind to their own bigotry, and a definition of a bigot that they cannot understand the point of view of others.

You saying that something is factual doesn't make it so. And even if all your statements were factual you could still hold bigotted opinions.

There is no point trying to enter a reasoned argument with a bigot because it is precisely their inability to comprehend two sides of an argument that makes them bigotted.

For the avoidance of doubt let me make it clear that my statements on the nature of bigottry are not necessarily intended to apply that they do apply to Jimi, but rather to explain why discussions based purely on facts are inappropriate when dealing with the issue of bigotry

[/ QUOTE ]

I stayed out of this discussion till now, but having been brought up as a catholic, I have not felt that Jimi's posts to be either anti-catholic or bigotted.
He has put up a reasoned argument to support his stance, but to call him a bigot because of this would suggest that it it not possible to put up a reasoned counter-argument in support of the catholic church
 
Re: Thanks...and a few thoughts

Wow, I go away for a day and there's another two pages on this!

Kim: Thank you for your post - a very considered and thoughtful reflection which I appreciated very much. Thank you also for keeping this thread alive - I feared at some of the early stages you might lock it! I'm glad you didn't.

Boating and spirituality - yes. One of my most memorable moments was dinghy sailing off Hill Head on a late summer evening. Beautiful sunset over Fawley [!], hardly enough air to fill the sails and Common Terns splashing into the water around us. There was somehting about the moment - or something about us within the moment, but it was like touching the hand of the Creator.
 
Jimi

I have to say I personally haven't found any of your statements offensive. I've enjoyed our exchanges very much.

Kim is very right in what he says - [ QUOTE ]
if the Christian church is to find relevance in a deeply untrusting and cynical world then it is going to have to withstand the toughest scrutiny and criticism of its whole history

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confident that such scrutiny can only be for the good.

To go right back to your first question - one of the posthumously great things about this Pope is that his death has provoked more thoughtful discussion than any before.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The Da Vinci Code was written as a work of fiction by it's author who clearly describes it as such. The gospels were written by their authors as a record of events and even if you don't believe it, much of what is written is historically verifiable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that, in part, we are in agreement on that. I'm sure that some of the bible is a record of fact, though I have no idea how much of it really is historically verifiable as you say. I also think that much of it is not (and, these days, only religous fundamentalists would say that every word is true).

Where we will probably differ is on the essential points. I do not believe that Jesus was the son of any god, I don't believe that there is a god. Heaven, hell, Satan, the resurrection, walking on water etc etc etc. There is no evidence to support these stories as being anything other than fiction; and that is why I referrred to the bible as being a work of fiction, albeit one that fits into the category of being "a darned good read". Others may well believe in it, and I make no criticism of them for doing so. I respect their belief and all I ask is that they respect my disbelief.

FWIW I believe the same about the Koran.

I also view Sikhism, Buddism, Hinduism etc etc in the same way.
 
And I think that is what it all comes back to - you believe or you don't, you have faith or you don't. At the end of the day we are all free to make our choices. We could all be wrong, but at least we are hedging our bets by all being different - hopefully someone is going to get it right just on the law of averages!
 
[ QUOTE ]

I don't believe any un-biased person reading Jimi's postings would regard him as unbiased. His postings have exhibited a strongly anti-church bias.

For an argument to be well thought through it needs to be based on reasonably accurate facts. Jimi's clearly aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

We'll have to disagree on that though I suspect that you would be hard pressed to find, in a debate on religion, anybody who is un-biased. He is certainly no more biased than anyone else on this thread; though it is obvious that he takes a different view from you.

I do not understand why you are claiming a lack of accurate facts in his arguement; but in discussions on religion people frequently confuse "beliefs" with "facts". I wonder if you have fallen into that trap?
 
<< The birth of Protestantism was sod all to do with Henry VIII,...>>

I didn't say it was Jimi. In fact I wrote :-

<< Henry VIII, ...... was created Defender of the Faith by the Pope for his writings in defense of catholicism against the heretical protestants. >>

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top