PDA

View Full Version : The Pope



sassylass
02-Apr-05, 22:25
I don't belong to any organized religion, but I do believe the world has lost a good person.

greeneyes
02-Apr-05, 22:51
Yeah,the end of era for his people

golach
02-Apr-05, 23:08
I don't belong to any organized religion, but I do believe the world has lost a good person.

I agree totally with your sentiments, I am of the same ilk as yourself, but it does not stop me thinking he was a good man and the world will be a sorrier place now

Golach

lassieinfife
03-Apr-05, 00:33
He will be one hard act to follow, a great loss for the catholic population and the world and although I am not religious I am glad that his suffering is over........ it will need to be a special person to follow him.

doreenhedgehog
03-Apr-05, 00:36
This good person has insisted that condoms should not be used to prevent the spread of AIDS.

kenimac1
03-Apr-05, 06:33
Religion, directly or indirectly, is responsible for most of the worlds wars, unrest and terrorism. Good man or not, I cannot condone the bigotry he represented!

brandy
03-Apr-05, 12:44
can you not just for once look at the good things some one has done and not the bad?
umm not using condoms to spread aids? people shouldnt bed hop as it is.. and there would be a lot less std's if they didnt... not that in this world it will ever come to that.. where sexual relations is a given.. and the norm wheras chasity i sconsidered weird!
as far as wars.. religion is used as an exscuse.. how many kings and rulers have started wars.. ?? because they were greedy or just high handed enough to think they were just and right.. you can not blame everything on religion..

pepples
03-Apr-05, 12:59
brandy, i do not agree with you on your last comment, most wars are not started through religion infact nearly all wars before the first world war were about conquest and expansion of territories the fact that conquering armies took their religion with them would have been essential to their way of life. as for the comment someone made earlier on about the pope condoning bigotry i dont think so the pope is sworn in on the ideas of the ten comandments and i cant really remember sunday school that well but i'm sure being a bigot to thy neighbours wasn't one of them. just because the pope was used as a symbol by yobs doesn't mean he has anything to do with it, by the same token would you say david beckham was gay because he is considered a gay icon.
people are allowed opinions but if they are not well informed about them they shouldn't speak.

trinkie
03-Apr-05, 14:56
Come, come now. Surely this is not the time for such discussions!
Many people have lost a loved one today and should be allowed a quiet time
in which to grieve.

I think a little respect for others is needed here.
SD

golach
03-Apr-05, 16:34
Religion, directly or indirectly, is responsible for most of the worlds wars, unrest and terrorism. Good man or not, I cannot condone the bigotry he represented!

I'm wondering who the bigot is here?

kenimac1
03-Apr-05, 16:51
Pope John Paul II was undoubtedly a great man and so, I think, was Mohamed the prophet. Unfortunately a great many of their adherents are not and are amongst the most bigoted and biased people around. They have no qualms in expressing their bigotry and bias in the most violent and extreme ways. Having no great religions and religous leaders would remove a lot of violence. OK, it's a very simplistic view but to an old man a very sensible one. So I can't condone any man having such unquestioning influence over the views of billions of people.

scotsboy
03-Apr-05, 17:00
He can be respected as being a man who found his way to the very top of his chosen profession, through hard work and dilligence.

©Amethyst
03-Apr-05, 18:35
Some of you ought to know better. The Pope died yesterday, and all some of you can do is complain about his opinions and those of many Catholics all over the world.

Scotsboy, I agree with you there. He kept going right to the end, he kept fighting, and had I been in his position I'd probably have doubted God's existence and whether or not I was going to meet Him.

I hope that whatever is beyond this life treats him well, if indeed there is anything.

brandy
03-Apr-05, 19:16
sorry i may have come across wrong i was angry at a post that has now been deleted.. im not at all saying religion is the cause of all wars just the opposite.. i was upset about the pope being badmouthed.. and was not very clear in what i said.. but it was in defence not against!
:~(
im very sad about his passing.. he was a wonderful man who did a lot of wonderful things and helped a lot of people..
sorry if i gave the wrong impression on what i was trying to get out..
i am a lot calmer now :o)

katarina
03-Apr-05, 21:48
I don't think you came across wrong, Brandy. Some one has just not bothered to read your post properly. I do not think you have any need to appologise.

The Pepsi Challenge
04-Apr-05, 00:18
This good person has insisted that condoms should not be used to prevent the spread of AIDS.

Is it fishing season already?

mareng
04-Apr-05, 07:20
Come, come now. Surely this is not the time for such discussions!
Many people have lost a loved one today and should be allowed a quiet time
in which to grieve.

I think a little respect for others is needed here.
SD

Err - how is this infringing on their "quiet time"?

Alexander Rowe
04-Apr-05, 15:09
Im not exactly sure how you can have quiet time on a messageboard, Church perhaps but not on a discussion board.


I dont agree with a lot of what he and the Catholic Church stood for, maybe when you are having 'quiet time' you can maybe consider the people in Africa who have died of aids through not using contraception as told by the CC, also if you havent heard of the Magdalene Laundries have a look on google, you will be shocked. Not to mention the many cases of child abuse that the catholic church simply ignored.

Having said all that, I do not like seeing anyone suffer the way JPII did and no matter what I've said above he did a lot for peace around the world and there will be a huge void to fill now he has sadly passed away.

katarina
05-Apr-05, 09:01
I totally agree with Alexander. however, the pope stood for what he passionately believed in, and if that belief was judged to be misguided by those of another religeon, that does not make him any less of a great and good man. To thine own self be true.

ironic_clans
05-Apr-05, 13:40
sigh! I guess i picked the wrong weekend for a romantic break to Rome then!...

I wonder how long it'll take to get from the airport to the hotel....

knew i should have booked that beach holiday at Reiss.

scotsboy
05-Apr-05, 16:36
that does not make him any less of a great and good man. To thine own self be true.

I am sure that will be debated in the fullness of time. It seems however that the "fashion" is now to talk up everyone who happens top pass away - it seems the Pope single handedly conquered communism, some may think this fair play to them. I just wish he could have done something for the Jesuit who happens to rule in Zimbabwe......maybe that was a bridge too far after communism :roll:

marion
06-Apr-05, 03:18
I believe he portrayed himself as a Pope for all people. I further believe he will be categorized as the most popular Pope of all time. Praise God for the wonderful person that he was.

gleeber
08-Apr-05, 09:21
I'm sad too but no for the old mannie. He hed a good innings.
He was also chief executive of an organisation, not only of massive wealth but with massive powers over people. Powers probably not even understood by the millions who wait in line to look at his dead body. Powers that drive people crazy and can divide families and kill friendships, do nothing to prevent the spread of Aids or Poverty in countries where the population are more prone to the hope provided by the supurstitious teachings of bible believers dressed in flowing robes.
We would all be suspicous if a witches coven were to practice their faith in our home towns but this male dominated Christian organisation have an open door to our compassion and understanding whether we believe their fantasies or not. That is sad too.
I heard one woman say on radio this morning, "he had a mystical effect on peoples spirituality and they didnt realise it until he died" Even if this was true it would be just as sad as the people who are mystified by other cult leaders who use suggestion and fantasy not only to fool themselves but also millions upon millions of their fellow human beings. I find that sad too.
Another woman said, "he had a vision just before he died and I think it was a host of angels coming for him or maybe even Mary herself"
Thats whats sad for me. The superstitiousness of the human race.

scotsboy
08-Apr-05, 09:27
Have to agree Gleeber........wonder WHICH Mary it was? ;)

~~Tides~~
08-Apr-05, 11:29
.

scotsboy
08-Apr-05, 11:33
No that is what you think it is.

Goldfish
08-Apr-05, 14:07
Isn't it strange that the pope is being buried next to bonnie prince charlie? It's amazing how the scots get around the world.

golach
08-Apr-05, 15:09
Isn't it strange that the pope is being buried next to bonnie prince charlie? It's amazing how the scots get around the world.

Ahem!!! A Scot!!! Bonnie Prince Charlie was born in Italy, so he is really an Italian.
Do they no teach history to the bairns nowadays?

Golach

katarina
08-Apr-05, 16:43
Another woman said, "he had a vision just before he died and I think it was a host of angels coming for him or maybe even Mary herself"
Thats whats sad for me. The superstitiousness of the human race.

I'm not particularly religious,and I'm not a catholic, but I find it sad that so many people nowadays have nothing to believe in. If we are all just animated vegetable then what is the point in it all? We've been nowhere, we're going nowhere, and what's the point of leading a good life? we'll all end up the same anyway.
I for one would like to think there's some reasoning behind this sorry existence, whatever it is.

Drutt
08-Apr-05, 17:57
... I find it sad that so many people nowadays have nothing to believe in. If we are all just animated vegetable then what is the point in it all? We've been nowhere, we're going nowhere, and what's the point of leading a good life? we'll all end up the same anyway.
I for one would like to think there's some reasoning behind this sorry existence, whatever it is.
Katrina, I would genuinely recommend learning more about atheism, agnosticism and secular humanism (http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentChapterView.asp?chapter=309) before deciding that life has no purpose when it is without religion.

mareng
08-Apr-05, 18:15
Can't help looking at the crowds in Rome and seeing the same as at Princess Diana's funeral----

An awful lot of people who far from being part of the "outpouring of grief", are only there to say that they were part of a "pageant". Just a unique tourist attraction which can be demonstrated by the number of camcorders in existance on the day.

Yes - there are a lot of people there who felt for very personal reasons - that they had to be there, but there are also a lot of what can only be called "rubberneckers".

Sad, really.

Bobinovich
08-Apr-05, 22:36
I for one would like to think there's some reasoning behind this sorry existence, whatever it is.

I for one am totally non-religious and believe that religion has caused much suffering throughout the centuries - probably more (directly and indirectly) than any other 'man-made' cause. I feel it is very wrong that the Catholic church are allowed to make a 'profit'! Surely everything they get in should be put back out to the people who need it most - and we can't dispute that there are millions who need it more than ourselves.

I also find it difficult to relate to religious people - I'm too much on the side of science (i.e. the big bang theory) to believe in 'and God created man'. And there are certainly better things to do on a Sunday than spending it listening to someone preaching about rights and wrongs, especially with the number of wrongs committed by the Catholic church.

However, to hear someone say that they feel there has to be some reason behind our existence I must ask why? To me life is about procreation, about making the most of our lives, fulfilling our dreams, finding a soul-mate, and generally getting as much as possible from the relatively short time we have here. We learn and we try and impart our knowledge to the next generation - whether they want to hear it or not!

There are so many reasons for us to enjoy our lives which is why I find it difficult to understand why people use drugs - I'm high as a kite on life itself!

What do y'all think? Am I a one-off or am I close to the mark?

champagnebaby
09-Apr-05, 01:25
I feel it is very wrong that the Catholic church are allowed to make a 'profit'! Surely everything they get in should be put back out to the people who need it most - and we can't dispute that there are millions who need it more than ourselves.


As bad as the Jehovahs, they have to give a percentage of their wages to the church(or whatever they call it) i know this cos i used to work with a lassie who had to give up so much of her wages. Fair enough give contributions to your church if you want to but i think it's wrong for religious organisations to MAKE their followers stump up.

Personally i dunno what to believe, i was brought up to believe in god and jesus but now i'm old enough to make my own mind up i think it could just be a fairy tale. . . . . . . . . I mean Adam and Eve had 2 boys(Cain and Abel), Eve got turned in to a snake for eating from the forbidden tree(this is what i can remember from the sunday school so i may not be 100% right, please correct me if i'm wrong) so if there were only 3 men left how did they keep the human race going??? There seems to be 2 many holes in the bible story for me to believe it.

And i always thought if got created everything he must've created the devil and hell???

katarina
09-Apr-05, 10:17
[quote=Bobinovich]
Eve got turned in to a snake for eating from the forbidden tree(this is what i can remember from the sunday school so i may not be 100% right, please correct me if i'm wrong) so if there were only 3 men left how did they keep the human race going??? There seems to be 2 many holes in the bible story for me to believe it.

And i always thought if got created everything he must've created the devil and hell???
Don't think you were paying much attention at sunday school! Eve definately was not turned into a snake. There are many that do not believe the bible is meant to be taken literally. The story of Adam and Eve illustrates how a woman can be tempted and in turn how she can influence a man. the 'forbidden fruit' is often believed to be sex. Come to think of it, the whole bible is very male orientated. There are some very intersting stories, if you can be bothered to get past all the begats - One that sticks in my mind is set in the town of Gommora where a man takes strangers in and wines and dines them - such is their hospitality. The strangers repay him by raping his wife. He throws the unfortunate woman out as he no longer wants someone who is 'unclean'
She lies at the door, begging to be let back in. This annoys him so he kills her and cuts her up into peices, sending bits of her to the homes of the men who have defiled her - real horror movie stuff! The kids only get told the nice bits.
Now if you ever read 'Chariot of the gods' the author believes the bible should be taken literally - and that God was a spaceman who landed among a lot of primitive and superstitious people, taking them over. And he gives lots of examples of how the bible proves his theory. Whatever you believe, the bible is a very clever peice of literature, and I feel it's a pity todays children are growing up so ignorant of it.

champagnebaby
09-Apr-05, 22:34
Hmmm dare say i wasn't. Was one o them turned in to a snake?

katarina
10-Apr-05, 09:47
the snake represented the devil. the devil temps the woman - the woman temps the man - see how sexist God is? Her punishment was the monthly curse, and the pain of childbirth.
Bet they didn't tell you that at sunday school. Bet you (and others) would be a lot more interested if they had!

~~Tides~~
10-Apr-05, 12:53
And i always thought if got created everything he must've created the devil and hell???

The devil was an angel called Lucifer (meaning the brightest) who got cast out of heaven because he did something bad. And hows this for a twist, Hell is Earth, after you visit heaven and seen perfection... :confused

[Tut Sigh] Religion.

katarina
10-Apr-05, 17:56
I was told something like that , Tides when I went thru my - 'i've got to find out what it's all about' - stage.
Lucifer wanted to be THE ONE, and when he wasn't chosen, her got a lot of followers - (Quote from the bible) 'and war broke out in heaven' So he and all his followers were cast down to earth to roam as evil spirits. that's where they are folks, trying all the time to lead us into temptaion so lucifer can get his own back!

gleeber
10-Apr-05, 18:17
Lucifer wanted to be THE ONE, and when he wasn't chosen, her got a lot of followers - (Quote from the bible) 'and war broke out in heaven' So he and all his followers were cast down to earth to roam as evil spirits. that's where they are folks, trying all the time to lead us into temptaion so lucifer can get his own back!

And you think its a good idea if todays kids know about this and give it any more credence than Santa Claus? :eek:


Whatever you believe, the bible is a very clever peice of literature, and I feel it's a pity todays children are growing up so ignorant of it.

katarina
11-Apr-05, 09:20
As a peice of literature that has had such an enormous effect on mankind as a whole, yes, I think it should have a place in education. The old testament is the basis of all major religions. It is, if not anything else, a history of the jewish people.
Children should be allowed to make up their own minds, but when they are not even presented with the different theories, what have they to make up their mind about? Going to sunday school, which incidently taught me very little, is not 'cool' and not particularly socially acceptable among todays kids.
Santa Clause is a whole different concept.

Drutt
11-Apr-05, 09:35
Children should be allowed to make up their own minds, but when they are not even presented with the different theories, what have they to make up their mind about?
I truly hope you're not arguing that children should be taught that evolution and creationism are equally valid ideas. If you are, you'd be most welcome in Georgia, but thankfully schools in Scotland are a bit more enlightened.

It seems to me that Sunday school remains the most appropriate place to teach about the various stories that make up the Bible. RE classes are a valid part of the state school curriculum but only where comparative religion is taught, and Christianity plays only a part of that. I'd be highly disturbed if RE classes were used to present creationism or Bible stories as fact.

Quite frankly, there's a wealth of superb children's literature out there, and if I had kids, I wouldn't want them wasting their time on the Bible. Other people have the right to encourage their kids to read the Bible if they wish, but that's precisely why it belongs in Sunday schools and not in the state school system.

katarina
11-Apr-05, 12:07
Did I say anything about presenting them as fact? And of course there are many excellent peices of literature but none of them have had the effect that the bible has had have they? The interesting question is why? And talking of evolution - they have not yet found the missing link. Could this be intervention from outer space?
The interesting thing to me is that everything in the biblical story is created in the same order as Darwin's theory. the only difference is that in the bible the earth was created in seven days. BUT the bible also claims, quote 'a day is like a thousand years to the lord, and a thousand years like a day.' A thousand years? a million years? seven days could well equal seven million years. the first man could be a space man. Adam and eve had two sons, so where did all the others come from? another bible quote 'the sons of gods (plural) saw that the daughters of men were fair and took them unto themselves.' Was the daughters of men, cave women? Did these visitors mate with them making evolution jump several thousand years? (the missing link)
Or was Adam an genetically engineered specimin? See how the mind expands when you start considering ideas? Do any of these theories come up in RE?
I have had some good arguements with various religious salespeople. I wish i could have had one with the pope!

Smee2
11-Apr-05, 12:52
Your little narrative doesn't seem to hold much confiction, spacemen are the missing link and they bred with the daughter's of man (cave-women). Where did these women come from.

Is bible and evolution stuff gets really quite confusing!!

Does it really matter where we came from what we should be interested in is where we are going!!!

Donnie
11-Apr-05, 14:07
I don't think we will find the answers in our time, our minds are probably not ready to grasp such ideas. I imagine it's probably similar to trying to explain "cellular mitosis" to a cave man or "How to program the VCR" to your granny.

katarina
11-Apr-05, 16:29
Your little narrative doesn't seem to hold much confiction, spacemen are the missing link and they bred with the daughter's of man (cave-women). Where did these women come from.

!
The ape like creatures were here already, product of evolutuon. then we suddenly jumped foreward by about a million years. Scientist have never been able to come up with a suitable answer. And I am not saying this is what I believe, just putting it foreward as one possable explaination. I could come up with many more biblical quotes that seems to go against the churches beliefs, but I won't bore you.

Alli
11-Apr-05, 16:34
Have the "smee's" been away on holiday? Gled you are back, missed you all!!!!!!!!

katarina
11-Apr-05, 16:37
I don't think we will find the answers in our time, our minds are probably not ready to grasp such ideas. I imagine it's probably similar to trying to explain "cellular mitosis" to a cave man or "How to program the VCR" to your granny.

I am a granny! And I can work a VCR vry well thank you! But you're right - Iwent thru a stage where I found out all I could about religion, wondering what it was all about - well now I can argue with the best of them, but I am no nearer to knowing what to believe. I do believe tho, that some thing is out there! I think keeping an open mind is the only way to be.

Drutt
11-Apr-05, 16:47
Did I say anything about presenting them as fact?
No, but you said something equally alarming. You suggested that children should be presented with the different theories, as though they are equally valid, and allowed to make up their own minds. That suggests to me that you think that evolution and creationism are equally valid theories. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's certainly how your message comes across.

The theory of evolution is based on the evidence we have as to how we got here today. The theory of creationism is based on the stories a bunch of people cobbled together.

By all means, Sunday schools teachers can try to incorporate creationist beliefs and discuss how this fits in with evolution (perhaps by suggesting that it should be taken metaphorically rather than literally), but there should be no attempt to deny evolution. To do so is to completely fail to provide children with an understanding of the world and how we fit into it.


And of course there are many excellent peices of literature but none of them have had the effect that the bible has had have they? The interesting question is why?
Why what? Just because religion, the bible and other religious texts have been used through the ages to coerce and control people does not mean that any of these beliefs are based on any facts whatsoever.


And talking of evolution - they have not yet found the missing link. Could this be intervention from outer space?
The interesting thing to me is that everything in the biblical story is created in the same order as Darwin's theory. the only difference is that in the bible the earth was created in seven days.
Interesting idea, but no. Darwin's theory and creationism are in no way compatible. In the bible, discrete creatures were created. There is no room in the bible for the evolution of creatures, and yet we have evidence of how animals have evolved over time.


See how the mind expands when you start considering ideas? Do any of these theories come up in RE?
I'd hope not, or it'd be equally valid for RE to cover the Raelian Movement and Scientology. In fact, from your theories I suspect you'd be particularly interested in the Raelian Movement. That said, it has no place in the classroom.

Seriously katrina, RE classes are there to provide pupils with an understanding of how comparative religions have shaped people, histories and cultures throughout the world. Bizarre theories about aliens may be entertaining to us as adults, but do not belong in a school classroom! This is how religious cults get started (oops, we're back to the Raelian Movement again).

chimo
11-Apr-05, 16:48
I don't belong to any organized religion, but I do believe the world has lost a good person.

Check the link:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1454932,00.html

In my opinion, a good person he was not.

DrSzin
11-Apr-05, 17:19
Hey Chimo, do I spy a fellow Polly Toynbee fan? Polly is by far my fav columnist; I hardly ever disagree with her on anything, but I am having a little trouble with her recent Commandment: Hold your nose, vote Blair and Brown will be the victor (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1453087,00.html).

Let's start a "Polly for Pope" movement. I love the idea of a liberal, woman, atheist Pope. Or, how about "Polly for PM"?

ironic_clans
11-Apr-05, 18:38
Well I was there on Friday.. amongst 'the great & the good' what a load of old cobblers... as was pointed out earlier .. a high percentage of those present were indeed 'rubberneckers' (myself included.. I joost couldna help masel..). It was more like Glastonbury than a funeral... whether he be a good or bad man I widna like to say, but I'm sure the money expended on the event & policing could have been better spent elsewhere .

gleeber
11-Apr-05, 21:44
As daft as a lot o what Katrina's saying is, I find myself agreeing with her. :lol:
Who can really tell what the answer to lifes mysteries are? Thats why religion stinks for me.
I heard a report on radio today saying the speed of light MAY be slowing down. Thats a novel idea in a world of scientific certainty. :eek: But at least the scientists use evidence to make their decisions through reason experiment and experience.
The truth is lek Katrina's saying; anythings possible.
Exepct for a biblical explanation of reality and a good Pope. :roll:

smee
11-Apr-05, 21:49
Gleeber,what would be "a good Pope"? is that the same as a wild west "good indian"?

sassylass
12-Apr-05, 02:24
I never said he was a good Pope.....I said he was a good man. ;)

smee
12-Apr-05, 11:27
Sorry Sassylass, I was making comment to Gleeber and his remark on a pope, wasn't reffering to any comment you made unless you one and the same? Naughty.

Smee2
12-Apr-05, 11:48
Katarina mentions that stories from the Bible should be taught at schools. I myself was taught some great ones when I was younger, but what always got me was they forced the 10 commandments at you as the rules to live your life by, seeming to forget that one of those commandments was about worshiping idols and what do they have erected in most churches "jesus crucified on the cross", is that not an idol. How do we know what SHE looks like.

katarina
12-Apr-05, 11:49
I think we're getting away from what I origonally said, Drutt. I believe and still do that children should be taught more about the basis of the christian religeon. Someone complained to me very strongly the other day, that her children knew more about islam than about christianity. Now before you start, I know that is very much down to her, but her point was that her children were studying different religions in RE, and nothing of their own roots.
Space men and all that may be fancifull imaginings, and I don't mean to say that that should be taught in schools, I'm just presenting an arguement here, a point of view that could be possible. And if you believe in anything at all (probably not) supernatural, then Then the whole theory of a superior being and a spirit world (which has nothing to do with space men) becomes possible.
At the risk of repeating myself, scientists are still flumoxed as to why evolotion suddenly jumped a few million years (maybe I've got the time scale wrong) so science does not have the answer to everything - far from it. What about all the other mysteries? The pyramids for example?
And by the way, the pope was a good man and a good pope. Whether what he did gains favour with you or not, he had a strong belief and the courage of his convictions.
If you have a difference of opinion then it is with the catholic church not the man who represented its teachings. Don't shoot the messenger!

smee
12-Apr-05, 11:55
"the pope was a good man and a good pope"? is that a statement of fact or just another of your opinions? or perhaps something you may wish to peddle (or shovel) as the pope did.

golach
12-Apr-05, 14:04
Hey Chimo, do I spy a fellow Polly Toynbee fan? Polly is by far my fav columnist; I hardly ever disagree with her on anything, but I am having a little trouble with her recent Commandment: Hold your nose, vote Blair and Brown will be the victor (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1453087,00.html).

Let's start a "Polly for Pope" movement. I love the idea of a liberal, woman, atheist Pope. Or, how about "Polly for PM"?

DrSzin, I have to admit this is the first time I have read the poison pen of this vitrioloc tongued femanist, and I think I wont be rushing to buy the next edition of the Guardian, if she is a shining example of the editorial staff, then I know I will not be buying it.
The opening theme in this trend was Sassy saying that the world has lost a good man,
as the instigator of the fall of communisim in Eastern Europe alone, I would also call this man good.
I personally am not making any comments about his religion, his beliefs or how much power his religion had in the world, as a practicing Agnostic, I feel it would not be proper.
But I still say the World lost a GOOD man

Golach

jjc
12-Apr-05, 14:52
Katarina,

I've been following along quietly with this thread and have to say that I am constantly amazed when people argue for the teaching of creationism as a valid alternative to evolution…

Setting aside the 'fanciful imaginings' about aliens (although why you presume that these explanations are any more fanciful than a God creating all things in six days is beyond me), what you seem to be asking for is a regression in education and understanding so that what is essentially a book of fables can be offered as fact in our schools.

We would scoff at the notion of teaching children that the world is flat because we have seen with our own eyes that this isn't the case. Similarly, we know that the Biblical account of Creation is wrong because we can see the evidence.

- We know that birds and whales were not created before reptiles and insects and we know that flowering plants were not created before animals.

- We know that our light-source is the sun, yet the Bible would have us believe that God created light on the first day and the sun on the fourth.

- Likewise, we know that plants require light to survive, yet God created them before he created the sun.

- Even the Bible itself cannot agree on Creation: in Genesis 1:25-27 God created the animals before he created the humans, yet in Genesis 2:4-25 God created 'every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam'.

So why should this particular book of fables be given any more credence than the flat earth theory?

And if you would have us teach children that the Bible is a factual document, I presume that you would include lessons in the abomination that is homosexuality, that slavery is just dandy, that bigamy is just great, that adulterers should be executed, that women are the property of men and that working on Sunday is an offence punishable by death?

jjc
12-Apr-05, 15:11
What about all the other mysteries? The pyramids for example?
Errr… which pyramidic mystery are you referring to here Katarina?


And by the way, the pope was a good man and a good pope. Whether what he did gains favour with you or not, he had a strong belief and the courage of his convictions.

If you have a difference of opinion then it is with the catholic church not the man who represented its teachings. Don't shoot the messenger!
I think that as Vicar of Christ upon Earth John Paul II had a somewhat more significant role than simply 'messenger'. I wouldn't separate the head of any organisation from the actions of that organisation under him/her, and I certainly don't see the Pope as being any different.

He personally spoke out against the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS. He personally authorised The Vatican to suggest, knowing it to be false, that HIV can pass through condoms. He personally blocked recognition by The Vatican of gay human rights and advised parents to seek psychotherapy for their gay children.

Being a man of faith and strong convictions really is no excuse.

katarina
12-Apr-05, 15:12
I did not at any time say that children should be taught that the bible is factual. As I said earlier, if you bothered to read my text - many people believe the bible should not be taken literally, but that it is written in parables.
What I said, I thought plainly, was that the bible should be brought into RE a lot more than it is. Since this book is the foundation of our so called religion and has influenced the developement of the world as we know it, it does have a place in education. A lot of the children today don't even know why we celebrate Christmas.

jjc
12-Apr-05, 16:02
I did not at any time say that children should be taught that the bible is factual.
But you have held it up alongside evolution as a comparable theory which should be taught to children.


What I said, I thought plainly, was that the bible should be brought into RE a lot more than it is. Since this book is the foundation of our so called religion and has influenced the developement of the world as we know it, it does have a place in education.
Yes, but it has a place in our education and it is taught at school (and not only in RE – Who can remember putting on a nativity? Now, who can remember dressing up and re-enacting the story of Chanukah?).

What you are looking for is not a class in 'Religious Education', which encompasses all religions and teaches (hopefully) tolerance and understanding; instead you are calling for a class in 'Christian Education' and I, for one, would strenuously object to a state-sponsored programme to push my children towards a religion that I take no part in.


A lot of the children today don't even know why we celebrate Christmas.
Well why do we celebrate Christmas then? What is it about December 25th that causes us to gather and give thanks?

DrSzin
12-Apr-05, 16:03
And talking of evolution - they have not yet found the missing link.
Coincidentally, I read an article entitled The Fossil Fallacy (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0003EFE0-D68A-1212-8F3983414B7F0000&chanID=sa008) in the March 2005 Scientific American just the other day.

Its subtitle is Creationists' demand for fossils that represent "missing links" reveals a deep misunderstanding of science.

I think we scientists tend to forget that most people have not had any personal experience of the way in which the "Scientific method" actually works: they treat things that are not 100%-ratified as being wrong. The lack of certain fossils doesn't bother me too much; perhaps we haven't looked hard enough or maybe such fossils are rare for some reason.

Scientists come up with theories or "models" of how the world works. We then work out the consequences of these theories and do experiments to test them explicitly.
If the experiments disagree with some (or all) of the predictions of a theory, then we modify the theory (or come up with a better one) until they do agree -- this process often takes some time to converge.
If the experiments do agree with the predictions of the theory, then we use the theory to make more predictions, and carry out more accurate experiments until they disagree at some level, ie until the theory "breaks" in some (often small) way. Then we modify the theory (as much as is necessary) and the cycle is repeated until theory eventually converges with experiment. Theory and experiment complement each other, but experiment has to be the final arbiter. Science is empirical. Religion usually involves beliefs (or faith) that can't be substantiated in this way. Well, actually some religious beliefs are certainly not based on anything tangible: the seven-day creation of "life, the universe and everything", and the story of Adam & Eve and their descendants are good examples of stories that are literally wrong. As Katarina exemplifies, many (most?) Christians do not take the stories in the Old Testament at face value anyway, so literal truth doesn't matter to (at least some) adherents of the religion. However, religions also involve moral codes, many (or most) of which are based on common sense, and may even be regarded as, in some way, empirical. But they are most certainly not unique -- as this discussion shows rather nicely!

I quite like Gleeber's description of religion as superstitious belief but many people find this offensive. BTW theories with a variable speed of light are not new: Dirac first took them seriously in the 1930s and they can be incorporated into many cosmological models.

I also find some of the thoughts & comments on this thread interesting, not least because they are often entirely at odds with my own, but also because they come from interested people who are neither scientists nor religious. Katarina, I have no idea what you do for a living, but I am sure you aren't a scientist! I like the way you toss out ideas in rapid fire, but such ideas need to be followed-up and tested. Actually, most of them have been. I think that most people don't realise how much we scientists actually want to find errors in major scientific orthodoxies -- that's why we came into the business in the first place. The problem is that it's rather hard to do this.

Science and religion are not merely simple alternatives; it is not just a case of "one or the other". I should, of course, point out that a minority of scientists are also Christians, but they are a rather small minority, in Europe at least. I am pretty sure that the fraction of scientists who are also Christians is larger in the United States and (especially) in the third world, but I don't recall where I saw these figures, and I suspect the effect is largely cultural.

Could our Universe have been created by some "superior" power as the Bible claims? Could it have been created as a hands-off experiment, or even as a hands-on plaything, by some external power? Perhaps, but I don't think there is any objective evidence whatsoever in favour of such a claim, or indeed any need for one. The universe surely wasn't created specifically for human beings because there are so many other evolutionary pathways which wouldn't have led to humans.

Would I bet my life on the absence of the Judeo-Christian/Islamic God? In a way, I already have. If this God exists, then I won't be going to Heaven because he would say that I have spent my entire lifetime denying the existence of both him and his heaven. But I don't believe in his existence, so it shouldn't be a problem. :) Actually, I am not much interested in religion; I think industrialised humanity is (at last) moving out of the era in which religion plays a major role.

As for the Pope... I'm not much interested in him either: I will be content with saying that I wasn't one of his biggest fans. I think he had a substantial (perhaps pivotal (http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9701/reviews/weigel.html)) role in the beginnings of the downfall of communism, and he was a devout campaigner for world peace and for the downtrodden. As for the rest, I agree with Polly.

Let's hope the new pope is better than the last one.

(I have edited this a few times, but only to correct typos.)

DrSzin
12-Apr-05, 16:16
Since this book is the foundation of our so called religion [...]
Whose "so called religion"? It's not mine.

It took me a long to time to convince an American colleague (who was brought up as a Hindu) that I really was offended when he repeatedly called me a Christian. He thought I was joking.

For any Christians who are puzzled or offended by this: imagine you were a Christian in officially-atheist Poland in communist times. Wouldn't you have been offended if a Hindu repeatedly called you an atheist simply because your country was atheist by convention?

I know the analogy is not great, but it's the best I can think of right now...



The old testament is the basis of all major religions.

Try telling that to Hindus, Buddhists or Shintoists.

Teaching RE in schools is ok with me. In my experience, most kids are smart enough to recognise it for what it is, namely religion, and they don't confuse it with science or maths or anything else for that matter.



DrSzin, I have to admit this is the first time I have read the poison pen of this vitrioloc tongued femanist, and I think I wont be rushing to buy the next edition of the Guardian, if she is a shining example of the editorial staff, then I know I will not be buying it.
The opening theme in this trend was Sassy saying that the world has lost a good man,
as the instigator of the fall of communisim in Eastern Europe alone, I would also call this man good.
I personally am not making any comments about his religion, his beliefs or how much power his religion had in the world, as a practicing Agnostic, I feel it would not be proper.
But I still say the World lost a GOOD man

Golach
_________________
The original Grumpy Owld Man

Phew, you are at last trying to live up to your signature. But I think you would get on well with Polly -- she likes agnostics. ;)

chimo
12-Apr-05, 17:11
I personally am not making any comments about his religion, his beliefs or how much power his religion had in the world, as a practicing Agnostic, I feel it would not be proper.
But I still say the World lost a GOOD man

Golach

A good man would not reward someone who tried to cover up systematic child abuse, surely?? John Paul II did just that, so to me that gives people the right to not only dislike him, but to oppose what he represented. Just wish more people in the press/media had the guts to stand up and say what a majoity of folk feel.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2005/04/12/cardinal_laws_standing/

katarina
12-Apr-05, 18:06
Katarina, I have no idea what you do for a living, but I am sure you aren't a scientist! I like the way you toss out ideas in rapid fire, but such ideas need to be followed-up and tested. Actually, most of them have been. I think that most people don't realise how much we scientists actually want to find errors in major scientific orthodoxies -- that's why we came into the business in the first place. The problem is that it's rather hard to do this.

.

I am not a scientist. My son died on the operating table, and I knew when it happened. The room went icy and I felt, almost like a voice in my head that he had died. I looked at the clock. It was exactly 12 noon. Gradually the warmth returned, and the sense in my head told me he was going to be alright. We were told that the operation had been a success and very little else. I decided the experience was all in my head at a very traumatic time. After we returned home, our own GP went through the notes with us. aparently his heart had stopped and for some time it was touch and go whether they could get it started. I asked what time was that? he answered 12 noon.
Some time later my son told us that he had watched the whole proceedure from the ceiling. He described items in the operating room that a nine year old would have no knowledge about.
Come on Mr Scientist, explain that if you can.

gleeber
12-Apr-05, 18:09
DrSzins probably right and many Christians will be offended by my assertion that religion is nothing more than evolved superstition. Good!
I am offended too when Christians refuse to accept how I am when I tell them their blessings are wasted on me but they insist that I play along with their fantasies. [mad] Richard Dawkins got it right when he declared he wouldnt give them the time of day by debating with them because it makes them feel all the more right.
My old mate Freud wrote a book called Totem and Taboo and although a lot of his theories are questionable because of his own prejudices his fundamental idea was that religion was nothing more than a way for man to understand the universe. It rung a bell for me and I see that need to understand all around me.
Before religion there was a system of understanding called animism. Some primitive tribes still practice this ritual where some animal or object is bestowed with magical powers. The red Indian totem pole was a part of this culture. Modern religions are just evolved forms of this system and there are many comparisons between the religious pomp and crap seen on our screens last week and the tormented and superstitious mumblings of many primitive tribes who still practice animism
Our present understanding of the universe uses science as tool. I recomend if anyone is fooled by Katerinas blurb that scientists are puzzled by the missing link they could read The Devil's Chaplain written by the aforementioned tormentor of faith religions Professor Richard Dawkins. It will answer your questions Katerina if you can manage to drop the biblical nonsense you were contaminated with as a kid. Its no easy though. :(
PS Like jjc I am interested in the pyramid mystery katerina mentioned too. Please tell us more. ;)

gleeber
12-Apr-05, 18:16
Sorry Katerina I posted before I read your last post, however I am glad your son is ok.
That being said, it would be easier for you to understand what happened for you in that place. If you believe it was something supernatural it says more about you than it does about science.

DrSzin
12-Apr-05, 18:46
I am not a scientist. My son died on the operating table, and I knew when it happened. The room went icy and I felt, almost like a voice in my head that he had died. I looked at the clock. It was exactly 12 noon. Gradually the warmth returned, and the sense in my head told me he was going to be alright. We were told that the operation had been a success and very little else. I decided the experience was all in my head at a very traumatic time. After we returned home, our own GP went through the notes with us. aparently his heart had stopped and for some time it was touch and go whether they could get it started. I asked what time was that? he answered 12 noon.

Probably coincidence. Just think of all the coincidences that didn't happen. I would guess that you had lots of other weird experiences that day that you have forgotten about. It is also likely that his heart didn't stop at exactly the same time as you went cold. Unfortunately, there is no reliable way of proving it either way.


Some time later my son told us that he had watched the whole proceedure from the ceiling. He described items in the operating room that a nine year old would have no knowledge about.
Come on Mr Scientist, explain that if you can.
How can you be sure he wouldn't know about the things he described? I don't know why he was in hospital, but if he knew beforehand he was going to have an operation, then he would have likely taken an interest in such things beforehand. Perhaps he watched an operation on TV not long beforehand. Obviously, I am guessing here, but I dare say there are others on here that have thought about it more than I have. But I do have memories of floating around the ward after a minor operation a few years ago -- I have never touched morphine since.

Seriously, I may be a sceptic, but I would never say that such things are not worth investigating. Most importantly, I am so glad that your son was ok -- I feel kinda uneasy about discussing this on here in public as it is.

jjc
12-Apr-05, 18:47
I am not a scientist.



Come on Mr Scientist, explain that if you can.
I’m not a scientist either… but I’ll have a bash:

Not only am I not a scientist, but I'm not Derren Brown; however, I’d guess that you were thinking about your son whilst he was undergoing his operation. I’d also guess that one of the thoughts that went through your mind (probably more than once) was along the lines of ‘what if?’ Perhaps those thoughts alone were enough or maybe a slight breeze hit the back of your neck. Maybe a subtle sound or smell affected you without you knowing. Whatever, something made you focus on the ‘what if’ until you were sure it had happened.

Your son was anaesthetised on the operating table. It’s well known that anaesthesia is far from an exact science and there is no sure way to guarantee that the patient is entirely unconscious. Perhaps during your son’s operation his subconscious was busying itself by processing the only stimulation available to it – audio. Perhaps what he remembers is a mixture of what he knew about operations anyway and what his ears picked up whilst he was otherwise engaged.

As for the timing issue… I’d first have to wonder how long your son’s operation lasted. The shorter the time, the more chance there is that it is simply a coincidence that your son’s heart stopped at the same time as you were thinking about it. I’d also take a serious look at the human mind’s ability to remember detailed events that simply didn’t happen.

DrSzin
12-Apr-05, 18:50
Wow, jjc and I posted within a minute of each other. Is this evidence for telepathy?

katarina
12-Apr-05, 22:10
I could argue about each of your points, but I know what happened. Each to his own.

DrSzin
13-Apr-05, 00:50
Oh I doubt it, Katarina. I don't think you have much of a clue how the physical world works; I suspect you never will, and I am kinda sad about that. So I give up for now and add you to my lost-cause list. :D

It was fun trying to "educate" you in the ways of science though. Thanks for participating -- I very much appreciate your honesty and straightforward approach. Coming from me, that is a big compliment btw.

In moments of boredom, I sometimes try to figure out how telepathy, etc, might work, but I have never got anywhere with it. We would have noticed any purely electromagnetic transmissions; quantum entanglement seems hopeless, as does a hitherto-unkown non-electromagnetic but otherwise-standard interaction. Of course, that doesn't mean that telepathy or something similar is impossible -- maybe we just haven't managed to observe it systematically yet; perhaps it propagates outwith our familar 3+1 dimensions of space-time and takes shortcuts between points we think are far apart. Maybe. Maybe, maybe ...

Does this sound outlandish to most folk? If so, then you ain't heard nothing yet. Contemporary ideas in theoretical physics go way beyond the odd extra dimension and non-standard interactions. The problem is that there ain't any hard evidence for any of them -- yet...

Hmm, I have digressed way too far from the pope. Time to shutup I think ...

scotsboy
13-Apr-05, 07:21
Isn't it strange that God's Ambassador on Earth is in fact chosen by men :confused

Dr Szin the "problem" you have with picking up these telepathic signals is analagous to the one I have with unscrambling some of the satellite football broadcasts that I know are there but cant seem to convince my decoder that it should see them :mad:

katarina
13-Apr-05, 09:38
I'm sad that you lot have such closed minds. I am open to everything even the findings of science, although that itself is constantly changing. Who is it that said, 'There are more things in heaven and earth etc. etc. etc.'

jjc
13-Apr-05, 10:37
I'm sad that you lot have such closed minds. I am open to everything even the findings of science
Really? That's odd because DrSzin and I gave you alternative explanations for your experiences and you rejected them out of hand. An 'open mind' would surely have to recognise them as possibilities.

Oh, and by the way – out-of-body experiences and telepathy are surely witchcraft and those aren't things you should be admitting to in your world of bible-thumping school-children:

Exodus 22:18 – Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live

Smee2
13-Apr-05, 12:03
hand me my bible here come the quotes, me thinks!!!

Is "don't suffer fools gladly in the bible"???

:)

skydivvy
13-Apr-05, 13:14
Hi, I am back. I see my old friend jjc is on the band wagon again. I find the way this thread is developing very interesting. I myself was a complete sceptic until I had an experience which was too personal and moving to post on a public notice board. Suffice to say there are things in this world that do defy scientific explaination.

scotsboy
13-Apr-05, 13:40
You mean that scientific explanation has yet to be found ;)


It is essential to lose the mind [in order to free it] Shao Yung 11th Century Chinese philosopher

jjc
13-Apr-05, 13:43
I see my old friend jjc is on the band wagon again.
Ah… it's nice to be loved. :roll:


…there are things in this world that do defy scientific explaination.
I don't disagree… but I would change the wording slightly to 'defy current scientific explanation'.

Nobody has said that out-of-body experiences cannot be real or that telepathy is impossible, but we do have the current scientific knowledge to make reasonable attempts at explanations for these phenomena without resorting to mystics and blind-faith. To discount these explanations out-of-hand is as foolish (and closed-minded) as it would be to simply dismiss telepathy because it cannot (yet) be proven (or, indeed, disproved).

Katarina asked for alternative explanations for her experiences. She was given them. She dismissed them, apparently without giving them a moment's thought.

katarina
13-Apr-05, 15:21
Oh, and by the way – out-of-body experiences and telepathy are surely witchcraft and those aren't things you should be admitting to in your world of bible-thumping school-children:

Exodus 22:18 – Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live

So you would have all those who claim to have had out of body experiences burned at the stake?
And when did I say that I dismissed scientific theories 'out of hand' I believe I said I keep an open mind about all things. Do you think you might be a little bit autistic since you don't seem to understand queen's english!

skydivvy
13-Apr-05, 15:50
I believe every man or woman is entitled to their own beliefs, and it is not up to any of us to belittle or demean the faith of another. None of us know what the truth is and those that claim to do so are totally bigotted. Who knows what science will uncover in years to come? Science has never proved the existence of hunanoid life on other planets, yet common sense must dictate that this is an entirely feasable conception.
Science has never proved the existence of the loch ness monster, yet who can deny that many credible people have claimed to have seen it.
Are you a politicial, jjc? If not, maybe you should concider it.

katarina
13-Apr-05, 15:54
They've decided to screen a new TV show to select a new pope. It's to be called
POPE IDOL.

jjc
13-Apr-05, 15:59
So you would have all those who claim to have had out of body experiences burned at the stake?
Nope… but then neither would I have mandatory Bible classes for children.


And when did I say that I dismissed scientific theories 'out of hand' I believe I said I keep an open mind about all things.
Yes, you do have an open mind… which closed immediately you were offered possible explanations and reverted to 'I know what happened'. If you didn't dismiss the alternatives out of hand, what was your reasoning?


Do you think you might be a little bit autistic since you don't seem to understand queen's english!
Oh dear me. Where to start?

1) You do know what autism is, don't you? It seems entirely inappropriate to use it as part of a petty put-down. [disgust]

2) I suspect that you are actually thinking of dyslexia; although even then I think that 'illiterate' would be better given the context.

3) Your use of 'Do' to begin your sentence means that you were asking a question. Questions do not end with exclamation marks.

4) It's the Queen's English.

katarina
13-Apr-05, 16:25
jjc, if i told you the sky was green and gave you a scientific explaination as to why you saw it as blue, would you accept it? I do know what happened - and until it happens to you, you will never understand it, nor will you open your mind toi accept that it might be possible. (Although if it did happen to you, I suspect you would put it down to too much of the hard stuff - or too many late nights)
And I do mean Autism. Believe me I know what it is. Autism is a complex developmental disability that affects an individual in the areas of social interaction and communication. Autism is a spectrum disorder that affects each individual differently and to varying degrees of severity.
And it may be petty, but pat your self on the back jjc, you are an excellent teacher!

jjc
13-Apr-05, 17:22
if i told you the sky was green and gave you a scientific explaination as to why you saw it as blue, would you accept it?
I already do accept it. It's called Rayleigh Scattering (the scattering of light off the – in the case of a blue sky – gas molecules in the atmosphere) and we've known about it since the late nineteenth century… :roll:


I do know what happened - and until it happens to you, you will never understand it, nor will you open your mind toi accept that it might be possible.
I have already said that it might be possible… in fact, I said it would be foolish to dismiss the possibility. However, you asked for alternative explanations, they were given and you have yet to give any reason (other than Katarina knows best) for your dismissal of them. It is, I fear, not me who is suffering from the closed mind.


And I do mean Autism. Believe me I know what it is.
Then you'll know that simply regarding all sufferers as unable to "understand queen's english" is both incorrect and inappropriate.


And it may be petty, but pat your self on the back jjc, you are an excellent teacher!
Clearly not or you would have made a better job of it.

katarina
13-Apr-05, 18:30
I have already said that it might be possible… in fact, I said it would be foolish to dismiss the possibility.
.

Did you? I must have missed that.
.[/quote] Then you'll know that simply regarding all sufferers as unable to "understand queen's english" is both incorrect and inappropriate..[/quote]
The inability to understand the meaning of words, rather than to be linguistically correct is what I'm trying to get accross. Seems appropriate.


And it may be petty, but pat your self on the back jjc, you are an excellent teacher!
Clearly not or you would have made a better job of it.[/quote]
Now I may be illiterate - but I don't quite understand your answer.

katarina
13-Apr-05, 18:31
why can't i get all the quotes in a white line like some of you guys do?

gleeber
13-Apr-05, 19:25
I only need to think about my own so-called psychic experiences to know that to accept them at face value would put me at risk of having such an open mind that my brains fall out. Unliike jjc and Dr Szin Im not even willing to accept that the type of psychic communication being hinted at here by a couple of folk should be given any credence as long as there are scientific explanations available. Its nothing but emotive drivvle and on the whole comes from the same source as religion. Theres also good money in exploiting the vulnerability of people to psychic experiences. I read about a respected scientist who exposed one of the tv psychics as a cheat during one of his performances. The crowd in the church turned on the scientist for dashing the hopes of the afflicted. :(
If we were taught at school that science was God we would be less inclined to make brainless statements about psychic experience without studying every little bit of information involved in the actual experience.
Religion on the other hand teaches us about spiritual kingdoms and demons and angels and Gods who control everything (even tsunamis and little children being murdered) without any evidence that the experience is happening anywhere but in our own heads. Thats the legacy of being taught biblical literature from an early age. It stinks! [mad]

jjc
13-Apr-05, 19:40
Did you? I must have missed that.
Allow me:

To discount these explanations out-of-hand is as foolish (and closed-minded) as it would be to simply dismiss telepathy because it cannot (yet) be proven (or, indeed, disproved).


The inability to understand the meaning of words, rather than to be linguistically correct is what I'm trying to get accross. Seems appropriate.
If you remember, I said that your regarding sufferers of autism as unable to “understand queen’s english” is both incorrect and inappropriate. Clearly I am going to have to explain.

You are incorrect because autism afflicts sufferers to various degrees and not all people with autism are unable to ‘understand the meaning[s] of words’ and not all are linguistically challenged. In fact, one of the most active and talented ‘readers’ I know is autistic.

Your comment is inappropriate because this kind of stereotyping and your use of autism as an insult to me is exactly the kind of behaviour that support groups for autistics are trying to discourage.

Incorrect AND inappropriate.


Now I may be illiterate - but I don't quite understand your answer.
Ah well. Your loss.

katarina
13-Apr-05, 20:23
now are we going to argue about autism? If we are, then I warn you I will win.

jjc
13-Apr-05, 20:54
now are we going to argue about autism? If we are, then I warn you I will win.
If you are going to be so ignorant as to believe there is nothing inappropriate (in fact, downright shameful) in using autism as a slur then yes, we are going to get into an argument about autism. And if you think that is an argument you can win then you are beyond misguided. [disgust]

katarina
13-Apr-05, 21:53
If you take autism as a slur then that says more about your attitude than mine. I did nothing to down autism, far from it, some of our greatist geniuses suffer from high level autism or Asperger's syndrom, which you should know if you know anything of the condition at all. They are very special people, who have a problem understanding the world as the majority of people see it- as you seem to have. But then who is to say that it is not us that has the problem. Oh, sorry, me. you of course are such a superior being.

philupmaboug
13-Apr-05, 23:53
As for your thoughts on autism Katrina.......OBLOCKS, nearly as good as your prediction for Grant Hall, what world do you live in?

gleeber
14-Apr-05, 00:10
They are very special people, who have a problem understanding the world as the majority of people see it.

I dont know much about autism but i thought this was a lovely way of explaining it. I think theres a lot of people who have difficulty understanding the world and although I know they are not all autistic many of them will have the same symptoms.
Im not being flippant because I am aware that autism can also be destructive and for families involved it must be very stressful at times.

DrSzin
14-Apr-05, 00:16
I have changed my mind about my preferred candidate for Pope. Polly should stay at home.

Katarina is better at pontificating than anyone I have seen for a long time. So let's start a campaign:

Katarina for Pope!

That'd put the Kat amongst the pigeons in St Pete's Square.

jjc
14-Apr-05, 00:32
I did nothing to down autism
No, what you did was use it in an attempt to ‘down’ (eh?) me… allow me to remind you:

“Do you think you might be a little autistic since you don’t seem to understand queen’s english!”

It seems blatantly clear to me that this was written in an attempt to either wind me up or put me down – in either case, you were using autism as the weapon with which to attack.


They are very special people, who have a problem understanding the world as the majority of people see it- as you seem to have.
‘As you seem to have’???

Oh Katarina, just learn from your mistakes. Autism is a real disability for many people and isn’t something you should label anybody with in an attempt to belittle them.

So you disagree with my views on religion and you disagree with my explanation of your ‘supernatural’ experiences. That’s fine. Argue your point or don’t argue your point, I have no problem with either… but to resort to ‘you disagree with me so you must be autistic’ is simply disgraceful. [disgust]

champagnebaby
14-Apr-05, 00:53
Think jjc's won the arguement! :)

katarina
14-Apr-05, 08:23
So it's laptops at dawn is it?
No, i don't hink you are autistic, jjc, it would be an insult to all those wonderful people somewhere on the autistic scale who could innocently misinterpet what some one is trying to put across to be compared to some one who delibrately twists what another says for the sake of an arguement. Antagonistic is the adjective i should have used.
And as for being POPE, I don't think my views would go down any better with the catholic church that they do with you lot - now would they?

DrSzin
14-Apr-05, 09:25
And as for being POPE, I don't think my views would go down any better with the catholic church that they do with you lot - now would they?
Exactly! :D

That's why they need you to stir them up and sort them out.

jjc
14-Apr-05, 09:41
Antagonistic is the adjective i should have used.
Antagonistic I can live with. You could also have had loud-mouthed, opinionated or arrogant (to name but a few) – I will hold my hands up to any of these.

You see, it is quite easy to do this without lowering ourselves to using disabilities as insults. Thank you.

00Smee
14-Apr-05, 09:50
Wherever you go, there's bound to be people who disagree on absolutely every topic that anyone would ever say. It's just life, you deal with it and move on. The Pope was a good man, nobody can really say otherwise but it was his time to go I guess and they'll hopefully find someone as good as him.

lassieinfife
14-Apr-05, 09:57
Cant Kat and jjc have a nice wee private chat and sort things out without resorting to insulting each other on the boards [disgust] people will never agree about anything ...life would be boring if we did so agree to dissagree and move on please :lol:

00Smee
14-Apr-05, 10:00
Which is exactly what I was saying. It's funny seeing net drama, but if they feel each other's comments are so harsh etc, then yeah, take it somewhere else.

philupmaboug
14-Apr-05, 10:03
What do you mean that there are people who will disagree 00smee? I dont think that is correct at all.

jjc
14-Apr-05, 10:03
So a message board should be a place without debate? Post your opinion in a thread and never return to it? I see... :roll:

Smee2
14-Apr-05, 10:04
Smee thinks that they really like each other!!!

00Smee
14-Apr-05, 10:04
No but we're sick of you and Katrina bickering like little bairns! Get a hotel room you pair and make babies! As for philip, haha, I beg to differ sir :)

smee
14-Apr-05, 10:05
Smee thinks you could be right!

jjc
14-Apr-05, 10:07
You're all here then I see... [lol]

00Smee
14-Apr-05, 10:09
You spelt that wrong JJC, don't you mean I smee you're all here???

lassieinfife
14-Apr-05, 10:13
Awwww jjc you not happy with us poppin in :( .......we just want to see if you can behave like adults ... debate is good :o) arguments and insults do neither of you any favours [disgust]

jjc
14-Apr-05, 10:31
You spelt that wrong JJC, don't you mean I smee you're all here???
My mistake :D

Drutt
14-Apr-05, 10:36
So a message board should be a place without debate? Post your opinion in a thread and never return to it? I see... :roll:
No, smee's decided that it's the perfect place to for multiple personalities of the same person to have a conversation.

Smee, go set up your own message board for your little games. I can recommend proboards.

katarina
14-Apr-05, 19:00
Awwww jjc you not happy with us poppin in :( .......we just want to see if you can behave like adults ... debate is good :o) arguments and insults do neither of you any favours [disgust]

well if you don't like it, it's a free country. so just......log off!

champagnebaby
14-Apr-05, 22:25
I like reading the arguements and insults - nowt like a bit of good entertainment :D

gleeber
19-Apr-05, 23:27
Its been awful quite since Katrina got distracted by DrSzins puzzle. :D
The poor popes been buried and another ones poped up in his place.
Looks like homosexuals and women needing help will find no comfort in this new papa. Stem cell research and birth control will continue to be targeted by these holy men with their biblical morals. Aids will continue to spread where it neednt because of the churches comments about condoms.
The new pope says he is a labourer in Gods vineyard. Cant be nothing but the best in that cellar. :cool:
Holy Mary is alive and well they say. :eek:
Billions believe it.
It makes me sad. :~(

fandango
20-Apr-05, 00:28
gleeber is spot on about the new popes lack of compassion and biblical (read as outdated) stance on the issues that are before us today. thanks, glebey.

as for holy mary, she is alive and well, and no man nor puny pope speaks for Her.

if only ppl would search their hearts for love and compassion for all.

DrSzin
20-Apr-05, 00:37
It makes me sad. :~(
Just sad? I felt downright depressed for several hours after I first heard.

However, I did risk a small smile when I read here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,12272,1463514,00.html) that the cardinal has certainly exhibited the stern, unbending face of Catholicism. It has earned him the derogatory titles of "God's rottweiler" and the panzer cardinal.

What the article says next may (or may not) be worse, but it would be gratuitously ungracious of me to cut'n'paste it here. Again, click here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,12272,1463514,00.html) to read it for yourself.

Oh well, I did always rather like "Back to the future". Maybe Christopher Lloyd (aka Dr Emmett Brown) will be the panzer's successor. Roll on the future...

SandTiger
20-Apr-05, 02:03
Ze Germans?

:lol:

scotsboy
20-Apr-05, 08:04
holy men with their biblical morals

I am not sure that their morals are biblical, it could be argued they are not - but dont want to get into the whole theological thing. Suffice to say that those mentioned will get little assistance from Rome.

Not sure what you mean by Ze Germans Sand Tiger :confused

Rheghead
20-Apr-05, 12:08
The pope during the WW2 got a lot of flak about keeping dumb in regards to the Holocaust etc. I see the Catholic Church has gone one further and has now put in an ex Hitler Youth member.

scotsboy
20-Apr-05, 12:41
Dont think he kept dumb, it is my understanding that the vatican had a concordat with Nazi Germany.

mareng
20-Apr-05, 12:50
The pope during the WW2 got a lot of flak about keeping dumb in regards to the Holocaust etc. I see the Catholic Church has gone one further and has now put in an ex Hitler Youth member.

Apparently he only deserted the hitler youth in 1945 just prior to the surrender to the allies - He must have found a new morality to replace his survival instinct.

Rheghead
20-Apr-05, 13:55
The media were peddling a 'history' of the pope's links with Nazi Germany. eg

1, He joined the Hitler youth movement against his will
2, He deserted in May 1945
3, He was taken as a POW

Rubbish

I have no specific objection to the pope being even a zealous member of the Hitler Youth!! Christianity for me is all about reconciliation, forgiveness etc. But we have been fed a guilt ridden, apologetic version of this man's links to Nazism.

This man was taken prisoner in May 1945. He did not desert, he was there right up to the end of Germany's capitulation still fighting on his anti aircraft station. The false information that Hitler was feeding to the Hitler youth is one of the biggest tragedies of the war, it resulted in thousands of German youths being killed. The pope was a big a victim as anybody else in the war, it is just he probably did not realise it at the time.

His father was a policeman, i suspect you couldn't get into a job like that unless you had some pretty close sympathies with the ruling Government. Father like son.

gleeber
24-Apr-05, 09:03
I notice this new pope is beginning to charm them already. I reckon its those eyes. He hypnotises them. :eek:
Theyre all going to Rome today. The worlds religious leaders. The guys responsible for the power and authority given to the superstitious rantings of an ancient civilisation delivered through their holy books and written by men who stoned women to death for having a good time. [mad]
I watched some Christian stuff on sky tv last night. Its something I occasionally do just to remind me how righteously arrogant these people are because of the power and authority given to their holy book. It stinks, Its transparent, and most of all its divisive.
I am fortunate to live in a country where my religous or spiritual or lack off those views can be spouted without fear of retribution, apart from the occasional Christian accusing me of being controlled by Satan. Satan is their fantasy not mine. Im glad I dont live in an Islamic state.
I dont have to worry about what people think about my rantings on faith religions. I give the bible absolutely no authority in my life whilst much of my world gives it all.
Holy books are responsible for demons and angels and miracles and murders and wars and hate and sometimes even love. The only science in a holy book is the science of the madness of the human race.
If you want to see this madness in action, look deeeeeeep into the new popes eyes and your half way there already. :eek:

scotsboy
24-Apr-05, 11:05
Towards the end of last year I read a book called Shantaram. Great book, true story of (at the time) Australia’s most wanted criminal (Armed robber, drug addict etc who had escaped from jail) who ends up in India. The book follows his exploits in India where he has some remarkable encounters, don’t’ want to spoil it too much for anyone who wants to read the book – but it is a fantastic book. Anyway now I will get to the point, there is a wee bit of philosophy involved in the book and a question is posed as to whether something is by definition “good” or “bad” – the answer
that it is written is NOT accepted, but the logic behind how this was arrived at is……it was quite illuminating and gave me a totally new way of looking things. I am not going to divulge the logic, as it may spoil someone’s enjoyment of the book………and of course you can always do the wrong thing for the right reasons. ;)

katarina
24-Apr-05, 13:27
gee....gleeber.....me thinks the lady doth protest too much!

gleeber
24-Apr-05, 14:23
gee....gleeber.....me thinks the lady doth protest too much!

Cool reply Katerina. Your one smart cookie.

katarina
24-Apr-05, 15:41
If you want to see this madness in action, look deeeeeeep into the new popes eyes and your half way there already. :eek:

I think I'll give it a miss, if you don't mind.