13 Apr 10
Originally posted by whodeyI didn't say that either.
So you don't think that women were commanded not to touch other men's private parts with consequences as described in the OT.
I didn't say that all the bible should be taken literally or that all should be taken figuratively. It's not all or nothing.
I think it is entirely likely that the bible is a combination of:
-things that were intended to be taken figuratively that lost some of its original meaning before it was written down
-things that were intended to be taken figuratively that didn't lose much of its original meaning before it was written down
-things that were intended be taken literally that lost some of its original meaning before it was written down
-things that were intended to be taken literally that didn't lose much of its original meaning before it was written down
I think in some cases we can figure out which is which. In some cases it might be harder to do so.
There are some cases where some take it literally and some others wouldn't.
14 Apr 10
Originally posted by whodeyyes about power and prestige: was it earned?
I am not defending the Pope. As I have said, I am not up to date on all the proof. What I will say, however, is even if they have all the proof in the world I say he will not be prosecuted simply because of his power and prestige in the world. In this regard I would equate him with MJ. Am I outraged that this goes on? Yes.
john paul was a nice guy mostly. he was pretty loved after a career of years. what did this benedict do lately? tell africans they are going to hell for using condoms? having several hundred dollar shoes and gold embroided pajamas while touring a famine plagued third world country?
prestige must be earned. we must stop taking the papacy for granted. yes, the leadership of the catholic is important but in the end, the pope is a man that can't be given special treatment because he was chosen by some cardinals to be pope.
14 Apr 10
Originally posted by Conrau KConrau, your argument seems to be lacking coherency at the moment. In another thread debating with Robbie you were basically saying the people who were involved in the cover up of the abuse should be treated more harshly than those who actually carried out the abuse. Or something to that effect. Here we have Cardinal Sean Brady who was involved in covering up abuse by Father Brendan Smyth , after which he went on to abuse more children, and you think the Pope shouldn't remove him?! I find your stance quite shocking, why don't you think the Pope should remove him? He is guilty of covering up child abuse. You keep repeating your mantra that it's not up to the Pope, but no one else seems to be doing anything. Which brings me to my other point, if it's not up to the Pope, why do we have to wait for the Pope's Irish Visitation? That seems totally contradictory.
[b]Does the Pope have the authority to remove cardinals/bishops/archbishops from their post? If the answer is yes then you have no argument.
No. Simply because he can remove bishops from their posts does not mean he is responsible for all their actions. The ordinary, or religious superior, is responsible for the formation of priests. He appoints them ...[text shortened]... graph.co.uk/news/local-national/pope-may-seek-cardinal-sean-bradys-resignation-14739955.html[/b]
14 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnSo give me an example of what should not be taken literally. What exactly was intended to be taken figuratively?
I didn't say that either.
I didn't say that all the bible should be taken literally or that all should be taken figuratively. It's not all or nothing.
I think it is entirely likely that the bible is a combination of:
-things that were intended to be taken figuratively that lost some of its original meaning before it was written down
-things t to do so.
There are some cases where some take it literally and some others wouldn't.
14 Apr 10
Originally posted by StarrmanAre you saying that his signature on a letter isn't valid? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world/europe/10pope.html?scp=3&sq=pope&st=cse
Okay, well we disagree about the validity of the evidence. However his subsequent acts are of no import to the case in question.
14 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobIf what you say is true, Branden Smyth should have been removed until either shown to be innocent or guilty. There is no excuse for not doing so.
Conrau, your argument seems to be lacking coherency at the moment. In another thread debating with Robbie you were basically saying the people who were involved in the cover up of the abuse should be treated more harshly than those who actually carried out the abuse. Or something to that effect. Here we have Cardinal Sean Brady who was involved in coveri , why do we have to wait for the Pope's Irish Visitation? That seems totally contradictory.
14 Apr 10
Originally posted by whodeyWell, I think genesis shouldn't be taken literally if you want to actually believe it has much, if any, truth to it 🙂
So give me an example of what should not be taken literally. What exactly was intended to be taken figuratively?
I'm not a biblical scholar so I frankly can't just pull verses out of my butt for you.
14 Apr 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobI agree and one important point that is not mentioned here is the root problem of the power that the Pope and all his priest have over their flock and all that is inherited with that.
Conrau, your argument seems to be lacking coherency at the moment. In another thread debating with Robbie you were basically saying the people who were involved in the cover up of the abuse should be treated more harshly than those who actually carried out the abuse. Or something to that effect. Here we have Cardinal Sean Brady who was involved in coveri ...[text shortened]... , why do we have to wait for the Pope's Irish Visitation? That seems totally contradictory.
Jesus clearly condemend the clergy/laity class that existed back when he was on earth. So somewhere in the Catholics past and formation, they desired the power and control over their flock on all levels, and reinstated this clergy/laity layout for the Catholic Church.
So that power and control has gotten them where they are today.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28926
14 Apr 10
1 edit
I'd like to ask if anyone here has heard of the child abuse scandal in the American Episcopal church? If it hasn't been front page news to you then there is a reason for that. The church dealt with the abusers in a harsh and direct way by turning them (and those who tried to shield them) over to the appropriate authorities and severing all ties to them. What happened in the Catholic church is an indelible stain that can never be whitewashed. If the Pope did not do what I just described (and there is ample evidence that he didn't) he should immediately resign. It would be the honorable thing to do.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Apr 10
Originally posted by pawnhandlerThat certainly is his signature and everyone acknowledges it. This letter, however, does not prove anything remotely like a cover-up. There are three important facts in this case that exonerate Ratzinger from any wrong-doing:
Are you saying that his signature on a letter isn't valid? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world/europe/10pope.html?scp=3&sq=pope&st=cse
1. The priest had already been convicted and removed from ministry. No further abuse was committed. There was no cover-up because everything had already been exposed. Ratzinger did not abet any crime; all precautions had been taken to prevent this priest reoffending.
2. The priest was laicised in 1987. So Ratzinger did not in fact delay laicisation.
3. Laicisation is not actually a punishment. Defrocking a priest is not a punitive measure. Most priests voluntarily seek laicisation, either because they want to be married or because they want to be released from whatever other vows they have professed. I think in this case, we have to wonder whether it is really in the best interests of the Church, to release a known pedophile from his vow of celibacy and canonical obedience, thereby placing him outside the supervision of his superiors.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Apr 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobConrau, your argument seems to be lacking coherency at the moment. In another thread debating with Robbie you were basically saying the people who were involved in the cover up of the abuse should be treated more harshly than those who actually carried out the abuse. Or something to that effect.
Conrau, your argument seems to be lacking coherency at the moment. In another thread debating with Robbie you were basically saying the people who were involved in the cover up of the abuse should be treated more harshly than those who actually carried out the abuse. Or something to that effect. Here we have Cardinal Sean Brady who was involved in coveri ...[text shortened]... , why do we have to wait for the Pope's Irish Visitation? That seems totally contradictory.
I agree that those responsible for cover-ups should be punished severely; I think, however, the Pope should be the last to employ any punitive measure. Bishops are not leaders under the Pope; they are leaders in communion with the Pope. They are the authorities of their own territories.
Cardinal Sean Brady who was involved in covering up abuse by Father Brendan Smyth , after which he went on to abuse more children, and you think the Pope shouldn't remove him?!
In this case, I think there are a few points which mitigate Brady's personal responsibility. Firstly, he was not a bishop nor in any position of authority and secondly, he was sworn to secrecy. I think this whole situation disgusting but Brady certainly was not the one responsible for it.
You keep repeating your mantra that it's not up to the Pope, but no one else seems to be doing anything. Which brings me to my other point, if it's not up to the Pope, why do we have to wait for the Pope's Irish Visitation? That seems totally contradictory.
Well, I think you should refrain from any judgment until the Irish Visitation is completed.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Apr 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewe claim the right of self determination, what is freaky about that? which never the less is an entirely different issue to the one at hand.
we claim the right of self determination, what is freaky about that? which never the less is an entirely different issue to the one at hand. You cannot of course be anything less than astounded at the contrast between the figures quoted for sexual abuse. I am sorry Conrau, something is fundamentally wrong with Catholicism when horrendous figures li ...[text shortened]... nce on blood and the alternatives that are available, indeed, you may find it quite educational.
This is not an issue of personal preference. You cannot cast this as an issue of 'self-determination'. Your religion teaches that it is immoral to receive blood transfusions (this is also a religion in which, supposedly, only 144,000 can be saved and the stakes are high.) This is a teaching which jeopardises lives.
I am sorry Conrau, something is fundamentally wrong with Catholicism when horrendous figures like that are examined and digested, it is indefensible, nor is your attempt to focus attention elsewhere going to work.
I agree that there is a problem. I do not deny that bishops covered-up. What I dispute is that this is the Pope is personally responsible for any of this.