Woman knocks down pope

dan719

kbannon wrote: »

Agreed but my elderly relations are not behind a huge kiddy fiddling cover up in fairness whereas this príck was and so are much lsee likely to be attacked in this manner!

So Vigilantism is okay now is it, so? Great, I'm off so. Don't bother trying to arrest me for murder, sure the pricks deserved it.:rolleyes:

Seth Brundle

dan719 wrote: »

So Vigilantism is okay now is it, so? Great, I'm off so. Don't bother trying to arrest me for murder, sure the pricks deserved it.:rolleyes:

Where did I condone vigilantism? Where did I say that he deserved it?

Arcus Arrow

dan719 wrote: »

Whether she is mentally unstable or not, she assaulted an eighty two year old man, and also caused an eight seven year old to break his hip in the ensuing melee. These are not actions that should be applauded, and I have no doubt all the 'the CC is evil rabble rabble' on this thread would be screaming for blood were it their elderly relatives injured.

If my elderly relatives were responsible for the same crimes as Herr Ratzinger I'd be just as happy to see them get their comeuppance. When someone like Herr Ratzinger can protect himself in his little kingdom and put himself above the law, unlike the average 82 year old, then it's no wonder people applaud when he gets knocked over.

A broken hip for his fellow sexually repressed male virgin is nothing compared to the harm these people visit on humanity. They are so cosseted and protected by power money and influence, a broken hip and the odd protest are mild compared to what they should be charged with were they equal in the law to any other 82 year old so making them out to be just like ordinary pensioners is ridiculous.

dan719

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

If my elderly relatives were responsible for the same crimes as Herr Ratzinger I'd be just as happy to see them get their comeuppance. When someone like Herr Ratzinger can protect himself in his little kingdom and put himself above the law, unlike the average 82 year old, then it's no wonder people applaud when he gets knocked over.

A broken hip for his fellow sexually repressed male virgin is nothing compared to the harm these people visit on humanity. They are so cosseted and protected by power money and influence, a broken hip and the odd protest are mild compared to what they should be charged with were they equal in the law to any other 82 year old so making them out to be just like ordinary pensioners is ridiculous.

What crimes is he guilty of?

Sexually repressed male virgin? WTF has that to do with anything? He was an eighty seven year old Cardinal who has AFAIK neveer been accused of abusing anyone.

What harm has the church wrought on humanity?

And they are not ordinary pensioners, they are men in a position of power in the worlds largest religion. Not only that, they are seen as being close to God, and so should be afforded some respect.

MagicMarker

dan719 wrote: »

What crimes is he guilty of?

Sexually repressed male virgin? WTF has that to do with anything? He was an eighty seven year old Cardinal who has AFAIK neveer been accused of abusing anyone.

What harm has the church wrought on humanity?

And they are not ordinary pensioners, they are men in a position of power in the worlds largest religion. Not only that, they are seen as being close to God, and so should be afforded some respect.

lol

Leprachaun

Heh,my traditional god-fearing granny was over at our house for christmas and this came on the news. I laughed so hard I spewed milk from my mouth and she gave me the biggest filthy ever.

TheZohanS

Lets keep On-Topic.

Pope got knocked down, NOT sex scandals.

Thank you.

CUCINA

It was all quite a blow to the dignity of the office, regardless of any opinions of the current Pope.
The thing that surprised me about the footage I saw of the incident was how the accompanying priests and others dressed in their vestments didn't even turn around to see why the security suits were running past them towards the back of the church.
Did anyone else notice that?

mink_man

when?? :O

Nervous Wreck

The_Minister wrote: »

??
What racism?

Jesus be a white man?

Arcus Arrow

dan719 wrote: »

What crimes is he guilty of?

Sexually repressed male virgin? WTF has that to do with anything? He was an eighty seven year old Cardinal who has AFAIK neveer been accused of abusing anyone.

What harm has the church wrought on humanity?

Eh the Inquisitions, the Crusades, the sack of Constantinople, the denigration of women (that’s half the human race just in that one), bringing back torture into the judicial system, selling Ireland to the Anglo Norman King Henry II, corrupting politics in one country after another with Concordats, clearing Hitler’s path to power, siding with Franco, Mussolini and burying Pinochet will full ceremony, not excommunicating for Mafia activity while condemning condoms and foisting an illogical attitude to abortion on the world, centuries of Jewish persecution, vilifying gay people, burning those who did not agree with it, selling Indulgences, claiming infallibility and brainwashing 5 year old children in schools all across the globe into believe they were guilty the moment they were born for some Bronze age crime causing a zombie Jew to engage in an act of masochism for which they are the cause.

That’s not a complete list..........:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:

Carawaystick

dan719 wrote: »

And they are not ordinary pensioners, they are men in a position of power in the worlds largest religion. Not only that, they are seen as being close to God, and so should be afforded some respect.

Maybe that imaginary god feicer could give them some respect for colluding in the rape of pre-pubescent children - no need for contraception there as those unfortunate children won't be bearing awkward children as evidence.
Or allowing innocent citizens of this country be falsely imprisoned in laundries and industrial schools.
Or for joining the nazi organisations in Germany.

In the real world respect needs to be earned.

Liam Byrne

I'm surprised that Gift Grub didn't come up with a Lady Gaga song for this event...

"Papa, Papa Ratzi...."

Seth Brundle

But asides from the the Inquisitions, the Crusades, the sack of Constantinople, the denigration of women (that’s half the human race just in that one), bringing back torture into the judicial system, selling Ireland to the Anglo Norman King Henry II, corrupting politics in one country after another with Concordats, clearing Hitler’s path to power, siding with Franco, Mussolini and burying Pinochet will full ceremony, not excommunicating for Mafia activity while condemning condoms and foisting an illogical attitude to abortion on the world, centuries of Jewish persecution, vilifying gay people, burning those who did not agree with it, selling Indulgences, claiming infallibility and brainwashing 5 year old children in schools all across the globe into believe they were guilty the moment they were born for some Bronze age crime causing a zombie Jew to engage in an act of masochism for which they are the cause, what have the Romans ever done to us?

RobbieTheRobber

kbannon wrote: »

But asides from the the Inquisitions, the Crusades, the sack of Constantinople, the denigration of women (that’s half the human race just in that one), bringing back torture into the judicial system, selling Ireland to the Anglo Norman King Henry II, corrupting politics in one country after another with Concordats, clearing Hitler’s path to power, siding with Franco, Mussolini and burying Pinochet will full ceremony, not excommunicating for Mafia activity while condemning condoms and foisting an illogical attitude to abortion on the world, centuries of Jewish persecution, vilifying gay people, burning those who did not agree with it, selling Indulgences, claiming infallibility and brainwashing 5 year old children in schools all across the globe into believe they were guilty the moment they were born for some Bronze age crime causing a zombie Jew to engage in an act of masochism for which they are the cause, what have the Romans ever done to us?

What about the roads?

Dragan

dan719 wrote: »

And they are not ordinary pensioners, they are men in a position of power in the worlds largest religion. Not only that, they are seen as being close to God, and so should be afforded some respect.

You see, the last line puzzles me. Why should i respect someone because they are close to "God"?

I am genuinely confused. I'll respect someone based off their actions, their words and their associations, not because of a position in an organisation, or their seemingly close placement to an apparent deity.

Seth Brundle

dan719 wrote: »

And they are not ordinary pensioners, they are men in a position of power in the worlds largest religion. Not only that, they are seen as being close to God, and so should be afforded some respect.

If I may point out (in addition to Dragan's post) that respect is someting that must be earned and is easily lost. Herr Ratzinger has lost my respect (not that he ever had much) as has his predecessor. They do not represent the idea of Catholicism that their organisation shoved down my throat. I sincerely do not understand how they can be close to God - why would (s)he want anything to do with them? Why does God not say something to the Catholic hierarchy (if they are that close) about how it is wrong to rape or murder people and even more wrong to cover it up. God seems to have let me know that it is wrong. My kids also know that it is wong; maybe they are holier that the Fuhrer over there in Rome!

philologos

Glad to see that he pulled through it alright. It seems that people have had their chance to vent at the Pope and Roman Catholicism and I don't consider that all that bad a thing, better out than in. I'd have my own criticisms of how he would deal with things, but I don't think this justifies someone leaping out at him in the middle of a service.

Roman Catholicism is one option amongst many for people looking for Christianity, and certainly I don't think that anyone should be bound to the words of one man, but that people should think for themselves. The most important thing for me seems to be peoples relationship to God above and beyond affiliation to any particular church.

I don't see any major major reason to be furious at the Pope though.

MaybeLogic

Jakkass wrote: »

Glad to see that he pulled through it alright. It seems that people have had their chance to vent at the Pope and Roman Catholicism and I don't consider that all that bad a thing, better out than in. I'd have my own criticisms of how he would deal with things, but I don't think this justifies someone leaping out at him in the middle of a service.

Roman Catholicism is one option amongst many for people looking for Christianity, and certainly I don't think that anyone should be bound to the words of one man, but that people should think for themselves. The most important thing for me seems to be peoples relationship to God above and beyond affiliation to any particular church.

True. As a wise man once said...Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.”

philologos

MaybeLogic: That isn't what I was saying. I'm personally a Christian, and one who would think a lot about my faith and I think I'm fairly intelligent too :pac:, and about the world. I am saying that one doesn't have to be stuck strictly to what the Pope says, there are other options and what really matters is ones direct relationship to God.

There's no need to tar all believers as lacking intelligence.

I.E Don't rule out all of Christianity if you have a problem with Roman Catholicism.

mrniceguy2

couldnt believe it

Galvasean

I posted up a note on my Facebook the night befor saying that a lot of the world's problems could be solved if we simply raped the Pope.
It was a joke!!!

Arcus Arrow

Jakkass wrote: »

Roman Catholicism is one option amongst many for people looking for Christianity, and certainly I don't think that anyone should be bound to the words of one man, but that people should think for themselves. The most important thing for me seems to be peoples relationship to God above and beyond affiliation to any particular church.

I don't see any major major reason to be furious at the Pope though.

Nothing that depends on the coercion of children from 5 years of age up can be described as an "option".

Children should be taught HOW to think not WHAT to think.

Carawaystick

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see any major major reason to be furious at the Pope though.

Apart from the pope colluding with nazis, helping child rapists escape punishment and condoning the false imprisonment of women and children.....

KeithAFC

Carawaystick wrote: »

Apart from the pope colluding with nazis, helping child rapists escape punishment and condoning the false imprisonment of women and children.....

Not to mention a big fenian.

philologos

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Nothing that depends on the coercion of children from 5 years of age up can be described as an "option".

Children should be taught HOW to think not WHAT to think.

Teaching children about religious belief, and raising them to employ such in a moral code isn't wrong in the slightest. Parents raise their children in their own language, and they influence their children in numerous ways. This will happen irrespective of whether this parent is a Jew or an atheist, or both!

Are you suggesting that it should be illegal for parents to teach their own children about their own moral and religious outlook? This includes atheism.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Apart from the pope colluding with nazis, helping child rapists escape punishment and condoning the false imprisonment of women and children.....

The Pope doesn't represent me, and never has religiously. There are of course good things about him, and bad things like all of us.

Arcus Arrow

Jakkass wrote: »

Teaching children about religious belief, and raising them to employ such in a moral code isn't wrong in the slightest. Parents raise their children in their own language, and they influence their children in numerous ways. This will happen irrespective of whether this parent is a Jew or an atheist, or both!

Are you suggesting that it should be illegal for parents to teach their own children about their own moral and religious outlook? This includes atheism.

I'll clarify: no school should teach children that they are Catholic/Protestant/Jewish/Taliban/Republican/Hindu/Accountant/ or Fianna Fail children. It is an abuse of humanity and it's potential to inculcate division between members of the human race from childhood. It's also a betrayal of every new born baby not to make available to that baby all the advantages and benefits of human knowledge amassed up to that point along with all the doubts and to waste their potential by not arming to discover what has not yet been discovered.

In other words they should be taught science not Iron Age superstitions like Catholicism and it's attendant baggage train, Christianity.

Parents influencing their children are not the same as an institution like organised religionism indoctrinating children with what has been shown over and over again to be a cobbled together collection of groundless bunkum.

What parent would claim to have discovered a perfect code for anything? The only one’s I know are religious and their code shatters into pieces as soon as it’s tested.

Atheism is not a moral code though granted when it's organised it can be just as religious as any religion. No one even needs a moral code. A moralist is a rigorist with a talent for justifying anything. According to religion so far just in the last few centuries it has been moral to burn, rape, torture and kill on an industrial scale. God told George and his gang to destroy Iraq. Apparently depending on which way a human has sex or whether or not they have a piece of paper they can be guilty of a moral "evil". Nature has no morals.

Jakkass wrote: »

The Pope doesn't represent me, and never has religiously. There are of course good things about him, and bad things like all of us.

There is nothing even remotely "good" about Herr Ratzinger or the organisation he leads. The Roman Catholic Church is and always has been anti-human as is Christianity, the religion founded by a pagan Roman warlord. The Quakers might be an exception but as for Catholicism and its splinter groups all of them would improve the human race by disappearing tomorrow along with Islam and Judaeism.

philologos

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

I'll clarify: no school should teach children that they are Catholic/Protestant/Jewish/Taliban/Republican/Hindu/Accountant/ or Fianna Fail children. It is an abuse of humanity and it's potential to inculcate division between members of the human race from childhood. It's also a betrayal of every new born baby not to make available to that baby all the advantages and benefits of human knowledge amassed up to that point along with all the doubts and to waste their potential by not arming to discover what has not yet been discovered.

I'm not sure about this either. Although I didn't accept belief in Christianity for myself until the end of my school career, in retrospect I appreciated it's CofI ethos. It benefited me greatly, and I don't think I'd like to deny others this opportunity.

What I will say is that atheists and agnostics should be able to bring their children to secular schools. However, denying people of faith the right to raise their children in a religious and moral ethos is wrong.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

In other words they should be taught science not Iron Age superstitions like Catholicism and it's attendant baggage train, Christianity.

Many Christians I know have a brilliant knowledge of science, and a good knowledge of Christian belief. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Parents influencing their children are not the same as an institution like organised religionism indoctrinating children with what has been shown over and over again to be a cobbled together collection of groundless bunkum.

You're not as extreme as I thought.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

What parent would claim to have discovered a perfect code for anything? The only one’s I know are religious and their code shatters into pieces as soon as it’s tested.

How has my moral code shattered into pieces, please explain?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Atheism is not a moral code though granted when it's organised it can be just as religious as any religion. No one even needs a moral code. A moralist is a rigorist with a talent for justifying anything. According to religion so far just in the last few centuries it has been moral to burn, rape, torture and kill on an industrial scale. God told George and his gang to destroy Iraq. Apparently depending on which way a human has sex or whether or not they have a piece of paper they can be guilty of a moral "evil". Nature has no morals.

It's a viewpoint on religion.

As for according to religion, according to whose religion? Don't lump them all together. The Biblical standard encourages me to live a fulfilling life while recognising my responsibilities towards God, and towards my neighbour. I have yet to see how that is wrong.

People can choose this standard or they cannot. That is their choice, and it's not my position to judge their character.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

There is nothing even remotely "good" about Herr Ratzinger or the organisation he leads. The Roman Catholic Church is and always has been anti-human as is Christianity, the religion founded by a pagan Roman warlord. The Quakers might be an exception but as for Catholicism and its splinter groups all of them would improve the human race by disappearing tomorrow along with Islam and Judaism.

Even I as a non-Catholic think you're being incredibly unfair. The huge deal of work the Roman Catholic Church do overseas in less developed countries is phenomenal, and the world would be a worse place over all without it.

I think it has made leaps and bounds since the Reformation, something which I regard as a hugely positive step for Christianity. There are still problems, but there are problems in every organisation.

As I've been studying at university, I've noticed the huge role that Roman Catholicism has played in philosophy. It puts all other religious traditions really to shame. I'm glad that I've been able to see it from this perspective, particularly from the point of view of Aquinas, and Augustine.

Arcus Arrow

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not sure about this either. Although I didn't accept belief in Christianity for myself until the end of my school career, in retrospect I appreciated it's CofI ethos. It benefited me greatly, and I don't think I'd like to deny others this opportunity.

I'm not sure what the Church of Ireland "ethos" is exactly. I'm not even sure what an ethos is in general. In Catholic schools we know it means the right to discriminate, divide, label, indoctrinate, recruit (for a foreign State in Italy), display violent images and distort history in order to perpetuate that foreign state.

Having said that if any country must have a religion it is far better that that religion is a product of that country. Religion only serves the latent feelings of insecurity in the human mind. Many people need ceremonies for events they inevitably have to deal with especially death. That they can be said to have such needs can't be divorced from the fact that organised religionism spends its time inculcating into them from childhood that very insecurity under the guises of "ethos" or "moral code". If an "ethos" teaches children that ultimately their responsibility is to an invisible cosmic deity that can and is constantly hijacked by human spokesmen for their own ends then that "ethos" is corrupting. A human’s responsibility should be to be pro-human. No child should be taught they can get away with murder or anything else by "repenting" to other world unknowns.

Jakkass wrote: »

What I will say is that atheists and agnostics should be able to bring their children to secular schools. However, denying people of faith the right to raise their children in a religious and moral ethos is wrong.

People who label themselves atheists/agnostics and their children likewise are contributing to the same problem. Schools should be for small new human beings. Schools especially should unify children and allow them to get to know each other as human beings. The fact that organisations like the Catholic Church fight tooth and nail to prevent them doing so say all we need to know about how much they fear children thinking for themselves.

Jakkass wrote: »

Many Christians I know have a brilliant knowledge of science, and a good knowledge of Christian belief. They aren't mutually exclusive.

The human mind is not so simple as to be either an A or B type mind. Different minds specialise in different disciplines and some spend a lifetime studying a particular subject. They can do this at the exact same them they hold other beliefs without ever questioning them. In many cases where those childhood beliefs are part and parcel of an organisational network, such as the Catholic Church operates, professing the second can and does often facilitate the advance of the first in terms of an individual career.

Staring down a microscope and relentlessly questioning up to 5 PM on Friday and then on Sunday joining the community for Church on Sunday where the goings on are accepted without question are not as you put it mutually exclusive.

Generally speaking no one can be said to be either intelligent or stupid. In fact for a human to be variously knowledgeable, expert, clumsy, inept, brilliant, well meaning to the point of doing damage, accidently getting some things superbly right depending on which area of human activity you measure them on typical of any human. A person could make a breakthrough in micro biology while being a complete amateur behind the wheel of a car and a devout Muslim/New Age Shaman/Scientoligist.

Jakkass wrote: »

You're not as extreme as I thought.

I bet I am…:D

Jakkass wrote: »

How has my moral code shattered into pieces, please explain?

I don’t know what it is.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for according to religion, according to whose religion? Don't lump them all together. The Biblical standard encourages me to live a fulfilling life while recognising my responsibilities towards God, and towards my neighbour. I have yet to see how that is wrong.

I’m not quite sure how anyone can recognise what responsibility they have towards an alleged being for which no one has any proof. Why should your first responsibly not be towards humanity and by extension all its relatives and it’s only know home: planet Earth?

What does the Biblical standard for the ownership of slaves or the mutilation of a child’s penis encourage you to do in your daily life? Keeping in mind such acts are supposed to be on the order of the same cosmic being to which you feel you have responsibilities. What is right about the Biblical standard for ethnic cleansing and the rape and enslavement of the defeated?

Jakkass wrote: »

People can choose this standard or they cannot. That is their choice, and it's not my position to judge their character.

Every day in court the standards of the accused are being judged. That you choose not to is only possible by being part of a system which does it on your behalf.

Jakkass wrote: »

Even I as a non-Catholic think you're being incredibly unfair. The huge deal of work the Roman Catholic Church do overseas in less developed countries is phenomenal, and the world would be a worse place over all without it.

The primary concern of the Roman Catholic Church is the Roman Catholic Church.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it has made leaps and bounds since the Reformation, something which I regard as a hugely positive step for Christianity. There are still problems, but there are problems in every organisation.

The first leap it made after the Reformation was the Counter Reformation. An awful lot of people died in agony as a result. No organisation which claims its head is the Vicar of what they claim is the one true cosmic deity can be excused as having organisational just like Intel or Smurfit packaging. This is especially true since that organisation claims to have some insight into a mysterious Truth that none other is party to. The leaps and bounds it’s made seem to have been made in a circle. They are covering up for their sexually deviant clerics now just as they were when Martin Luther stood up in Wittenberg. As they conned people with Indulgences in the Middle Ages they still do now. Herr Ratzinger promised young people a special “indulgence” for attending world youth day in Australia. Just as they lied about the child terrifying “fires of hell” then, the same Herr Ratzinger (infamous skittle imitator) has reiterated that such fires were real. He’s as mad as any of his predecessors.

[quote=Jakkass;63736868As I've been studying at university, I've noticed the huge role that Roman Catholicism has played in philosophy. It puts all other religious traditions really to shame. I'm glad that I've been able to see it from this perspective, particularly from the point of view of Aquinas, and Augustine. [/quote]

I’d prefer to see things from the perspective of people who know far more than the pair of them could ever have imagined.

I think it’s a great mark of the merry go round the Catholic Church drives human intellect onto that students should be studying a pair of religious anti female paranoiacs who knew far less about the world than any well educated 14 year old in the 21st century. I know 10 year olds who are learned professors relative to someone who only possessed the knowledge of Au and Ag. Philosophy is more or less the practices of “ifs” “ands” “buts” and “maybes”. It’s just the act of wondering about stuff.

philologos

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

I'm not sure what the Church of Ireland "ethos" is exactly. I'm not even sure what an ethos is in general. In Catholic schools we know it means the right to discriminate, divide, label, indoctrinate, recruit (for a foreign State in Italy), display violent images and distort history in order to perpetuate that foreign state.[/font]

For us it was chapel 20 minutes in the morning, and religion classes, but most of the religion classes were done using the Junior Cert and Leaving Cert curriculum. There was a lot of discussion about common Christian views about how God created the world, as well as views about Judaism and Islam mainly. We touched on a few others such as Sikhism and Hinduism too.

Although, at school I was in classes with Catholics, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and probably others of other denominations, those who didn't believe, a Sikh and a Jew the school had an Anglican ethos.

The religion classes I took facilitated me in my own independent search into Christianity.

Ethos - Motivation of the school. It's possible to have a secular ethos too.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Having said that if any country must have a religion it is far better that that religion is a product of that country. Religion only serves the latent feelings of insecurity in the human mind.

Your views about religion are you own. Asking the State to impose this viewpoint on people who do not share your views isn't acceptable however. It's right to ask for the State to allow families of an atheist or an agnostic persuasion to be educated without religious ethos, but if families genuinely want their children to learn about Christianity in school that's fine by me.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

That they can be said to have such needs can't be divorced from the fact that organised religionism spends its time inculcating into them from childhood that very insecurity under the guises of "ethos" or "moral code". If an "ethos" teaches children that ultimately their responsibility is to an invisible cosmic deity that can and is constantly hijacked by human spokesmen for their own ends then that "ethos" is corrupting. A human’s responsibility should be to be pro-human. No child should be taught they can get away with murder or anything else by "repenting" to other world unknowns. [/font]

Actually, it doesn't. Christianity teaches that we are all moral actors in this world, and we will be accountable to God. We can make an earnest desire to repent and change our ways, or we can be punished as we deserve for them. Christianity doesn't teach that people shouldn't be responsible to the State, rather it does the opposite numerous times in the Scriptures.

Can I ask, what level of Biblical knowledge would you say that you have?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

People who label themselves atheists/agnostics and their children likewise are contributing to the same problem. Schools should be for small new human beings. Schools especially should unify children and allow them to get to know each other as human beings. The fact that organisations like the Catholic Church fight tooth and nail to prevent them doing so say all we need to know about how much they fear children thinking for themselves.

I think there is a certain value in unifying children, and having secular schools. I just do not feel that all of them should be secular. There is a value in giving some people a religious education.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

The human mind is not so simple as to be either an A or B type mind. Different minds specialise in different disciplines and some spend a lifetime studying a particular subject. They can do this at the exact same them they hold other beliefs without ever questioning them. In many cases where those childhood beliefs are part and parcel of an organisational network, such as the Catholic Church operates, professing the second can and does often facilitate the advance of the first in terms of an individual career.

It's not A or B, precisely because A and B are different questions. A asks about how the world is, and B asks about why the world is. This is why one can be a Christian and interested in science. Personally, I think being a Christian in the modern world demands an interest in science due to it's role in the modern world. Christians are called to be aware of the world, while being distinct from it. Distinct so that we can live according to the Gospel. This is a struggle, but one that is worthy of going through.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Staring down a microscope and relentlessly questioning up to 5 PM on Friday and then on Sunday joining the community for Church on Sunday where the goings on are accepted without question are not as you put it mutually exclusive.

Again, stereotypes here. None of this is true for myself, most of the Christians on boards.ie if you go to that section, or the Christians I know in real life. In any Biblical discussion I have had with other people, it involves rigorous questioning as to establish what God is trying to communicate to us through the Bible.

I am a Christian precisely because I questioned. I haven't always been a Christian, rather I became one nearly 3 years ago.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Generally speaking no one can be said to be either intelligent or stupid. In fact for a human to be variously knowledgeable, expert, clumsy, inept, brilliant, well meaning to the point of doing damage, accidently getting some things superbly right depending on which area of human activity you measure them on typical of any human. A person could make a breakthrough in micro biology while being a complete amateur behind the wheel of a car and a devout Muslim/New Age Shaman/Scientoligist.

I unlike you don't see belief in something higher than ourselves to be a derogatory aspect. Open your mind and you might find out that I and others are a lot like you are. We're all trying to get through this world and understand it as best as we can.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

I bet I am…:D

You're a little, but then again people have referred to my beliefs as extreme too.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

I don’t know what it is.

I am a Christian, I believe God leads me to what is right and wrong, good and evil. Go figure.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

I’m not quite sure how anyone can recognise what responsibility they have towards an alleged being for which no one has any proof. Why should your first responsibly not be towards humanity and by extension all its relatives and it’s only know home: planet Earth?

Of course nobody can know anything of God until they try to have a relationship with Him. The biggest evidence for my belief is my experience with God, and the change I have seen in who I am since I have become a Christian, and the changes I have seen in other peoples lives.

Apart from this, there are of course other philosophical, historical, and other arguments that can provide us evidence for our beliefs. One will never become a Christian without a personal encounter with God however. You can show people all the evidence they want, but belief in God depends on a willingness to explore and to understand.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

What does the Biblical standard for the ownership of slaves or the mutilation of a child’s penis encourage you to do in your daily life? Keeping in mind such acts are supposed to be on the order of the same cosmic being to which you feel you have responsibilities. What is right about the Biblical standard for ethnic cleansing and the rape and enslavement of the defeated?

Circumcision isn't required in Christianity. It is a rite for those who are descended directly from Abraham. God considers people for their faith, their lives and their actions are more important than what mark they have on their flesh. This is the Christian view, Jews and Muslims will argue otherwise.

The Bible is opposed to rape, and as for the conquest of Israel, divine punishment comes into another category. I personally think that if God gives us the gift of life that He has the right to take it away. This world is His, and by living in this world, we are under His authority.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Every day in court the standards of the accused are being judged. That you choose not to is only possible by being part of a system which does it on your behalf.

You're right, but it isn't because of the courts. It's because of God. God judges man, I don't because I have no right to. I am a sinner like everyone else. I'm no better than anyone else, and I make this clear most of the times I have discussed this.

It's when you realise that you are not deserving of salvation, but that it has been freely given by God that one starts to realise what a big deal it is. Until one can get to this point of realisation, it's hard to think that anyone can become a Christian.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

The primary concern of the Roman Catholic Church is the Roman Catholic Church.

You're just ignoring the point now. Do the the Roman Catholic Church do good works over sea?

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

The first leap it made after the Reformation was the Counter Reformation. An awful lot of people died in agony as a result. No organisation which claims its head is the Vicar of what they claim is the one true cosmic deity can be excused as having organisational just like Intel or Smurfit packaging. This is especially true since that organisation claims to have some insight into a mysterious Truth that none other is party to. The leaps and bounds it’s made seem to have been made in a circle. They are covering up for their sexually deviant clerics now just as they were when Martin Luther stood up in Wittenberg. As they conned people with Indulgences in the Middle Ages they still do now. Herr Ratzinger promised young people a special “indulgence” for attending world youth day in Australia. Just as they lied about the child terrifying “fires of hell” then, the same Herr Ratzinger (infamous skittle imitator) has reiterated that such fires were real. He’s as mad as any of his predecessors.

I consider myself to be Reformed, that's why I consider the Reformation to be such a good thing. I don't consider it good because of the loss of life, I consider it good because it allowed people to investigate Christianity for themselves. It also allowed questioning of the Scriptures for the first time as the Bible was freely available in the common tongue of the people.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

I’d prefer to see things from the perspective of people who know far more than the pair of them could ever have imagined.

Aquinas and Augustine are two of the most enlightened philosophers Europe has ever seen. René Descartes a Jesuit thinker brought doubt to the scene of philosophy. In more modern philosophy you have people like Herbert McCabe, and Alastair McIntyre who have brought new perspectives to both the Philosophy of Religion and Moral Philosophy respectively. If you ever look into philosophical discourse, you'll find that Roman Catholicism is still very prevalent even in our age.

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

I think it’s a great mark of the merry go round the Catholic Church drives human intellect onto that students should be studying a pair of religious anti female paranoiacs who knew far less about the world than any well educated 14 year old in the 21st century. I know 10 year olds who are learned professors relative to someone who only possessed the knowledge of Au and Ag. Philosophy is more or less the practices of “ifs” “ands” “buts” and “maybes”. It’s just the act of wondering about stuff.

It's clear that you aren't looking at this rationally. I'm dealing with this from a non-Catholic point of view, and it's stunningly clear how much Roman Catholic thinkers have brought to European philosophy.

As for what students study, we study it objectively. In a lot of cases at my university some of my lecturers are ordained priests in the Roman Catholic Church, some aren't. We go through philosophy in general irrespective of what people think about it, so that we get a full view of it.

I disagree with Nietzsche profoundly, yet I regard him as interesting. Some could argue his views are dangerous, but they remain because we must think critically about them. If the atheist is really intellectually honest, he'll say the same about Christian philosophers, and the Biblical canon.