Dawkins to arrest Pope

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]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.

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, ...[text shortened]... covered-up. What I dispute is that this is the Pope is personally responsible for any of this.[/b]

i am sorry Conrau it is self evident you do know what we profess.

For example, you are confusing self determination (the right that a person has in determining what may be done with his or her own body), with self preference. Please tell me why you have a right to over rule and impose your conscience and dictates upon my person? If you cannot , then you shall admit that i have the right of self determination.

Secondly we do not teach that it is immoral, for everyone has the right to exercise their own conscience, all we can say with any certainty that we feel our understanding of the use of blood, prohibits us from taking whole blood. (it does not in any way prohibit us from taking products derived from bloods four primary components, such as blood fractions etc) Indeed in the case of elective surgery there are a whole host of procedures which we may avail ourselves of, like cell salvage, hemodilution, laser scalpuls which close blood vessels as they are cut etc etc

Thirdly we do not teach that only one hundred and forty four persons shall be saved, that is a gross error and really betrays your lack of understanding of our beliefs.

I refute the claim that we jeopardize lives, indeed its a very poor surgeon that needs to administer blood in this day and age, especial with elective surgery. Indeed it may even be argued that taking blood is particularly dangerous, given its complexity. what shall we say to those persons who have contracted HIV, hepatitis and other diseases through blood transfusions, that it was safe and practical thing to do, i really think your on a hiding to nothing there mate! Not to mention that medical staff are often unaware of the proper procedure (there was a case in London a few years ago with a lady who was haemorrhaging while giving birth to children, she died because the staff were busy looking up bloodless procedures at the time ) indeed this same thing happened to my friends wife, she was haemorrhaging after giving birth and the hospital wanted to administer blood, which she had refused, when we informed them that they could try a technique known as hypotensive anesthesia (reducing blood pressure so that the flow is less and the blood can be allowed to congeal, they were sceptical) we literally bought the tablets from the chemist, administered them and the patient stopped haemorrhaging and mad a full recovery. It highlights that they may simply be unaware of the alternatives. My friend once had to remind the medical staff that there was a recombinant drug, Erythropoietin, which acts like a natural hormone and induces the body to produce its own red cells.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Well, I think genesis shouldn't be taken literally if you want to actually believe it has much, if any, truth to it 🙂

I'm not a biblical scholar so I frankly can't just pull verses out of my butt for you.

Not to sound to harsh, shouldn't you have a better grasp of what you are talking about before you open your trap? 😕

Originally posted by Conrau K
That 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:

1. The priest had already been convicted and removed from ministry. No further abuse was committed. There was no cover-up because ...[text shortened]... celibacy and canonical obedience, thereby placing him outside the supervision of his superiors.

Re: #3: I hadn't thought of that. I guess it is better to keep them under some sort of supervision than to turn them loose in the world!

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]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.

I agree that those responsible for cover-ups should ...[text shortened]... Well, I think you should refrain from any judgment until the Irish Visitation is completed.[/b]

Well, I think you should refrain from any judgment until the Irish Visitation is completed.

The phrase -

'There's no point shutting the stable door once the horse has bolted'

springs to mind.

Originally posted by PBE6
I'd say the existence of child abuse in the world is pretty strong evidence that nothing is in God's hands. If God had the power to stop this kind of abuse, why wouldn't it?

Well..why doesn't God stop all badness?

Originally posted by galveston75
Well..why doesn't God stop all badness?

Because he is as powerless as you.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Because he is as powerless as you.

unsubstantiated assertion!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
unsubstantiated assertion!

I should have said 'me' because if I had the power I would prevent the abuse of children. Of course, I would require the Pope to resign also (and throw 110 mile-an-hour fastballs with a flick of my wrist.)

Originally posted by whodey
Not to sound to harsh, shouldn't you have a better grasp of what you are talking about before you open your trap? 😕

What level of biblical education do you think one should have until they have an opinion?

Because I don't have two specific verses memorized means that I don't know what I'm talking about at all? Ridiculous. I have read parts of the bible and I have read various things about it (pro and con) and I admit I'm not a biblical scholar. If that were your criteria then you should be complaining to most on this forum (likely including yourself I would bet).


I think some is literal and some is figurative. What's your problem anyways?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
What level of biblical education do you think one should have until they have an opinion?

Because I don't have two specific verses memorized means that I don't know what I'm talking about at all? Ridiculous. I have read parts of the bible and I have read various things about it (pro and con) and I admit I'm not a biblical scholar. If that were your cri ...[text shortened]... ld bet).


I think some is literal and some is figurative. What's your problem anyways?

To say that some of it is figurative and not be able to point to specifics seems peculiar to me. It is like saying that I don't believe Obamacare should be taken both literally and figuratively but not be able to point to what is and is not literal. At that point, you are questioning the validity of the entire document because it is up to you to decide what you like or do not like in the bill.

Originally posted by whodey
To say that some of it is figurative and not be able to point to specifics seems peculiar to me. It is like saying that I don't believe Obamacare should be taken both literally and figuratively but not be able to point to what is and is not literal. At that point, you are questioning the validity of the entire document because it is up to you to decide what you like or do not like in the bill.

Wow.. do you relate everything to the health care bill?

I think your analogy is flawed because the health care bill is a legal document and hence is intended to be taken literally by definition. Also, even if it wasn't and there were some questions the people who wrote it are still here and can clarify if needed.

With the bible this is different. It was written by people many years ago and in most parts we don't know who wrote it. Who wrote exodus? Who wrote the story of Job? Were they edited along the way? We don't know.

We have to try to infer the intent of the authors from the text itself and from any corroborating evidence that we find that might confirm or contradict the story.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Wow.. do you relate everything to the health care bill?

I think your analogy is flawed because the health care bill is a legal document and hence is intended to be taken literally by definition. Also, even if it wasn't and there were some questions the people who wrote it are still here and can clarify if needed.

With the bible this is different. It ...[text shortened]... and from any corroborating evidence that we find that might confirm or contradict the story.

Biblical archeaologists seem to have no problem taking it literally. At least, the history of it is taken literally. I suppose that leaves the supernatural aspect to be discussed. Was it to be taken figuratively? Is the concept of a God a figurative concept or a literal one? What say you? Was the concept of God a figurative concept?

Originally posted by whodey
Biblical archeaologists seem to have no problem taking it literally. At least, the history of it is taken literally. I suppose that leaves the supernatural aspect to be discussed. Was it to be taken figuratively? Is the concept of a God a figurative concept or a literal one? What say you? Was the concept of God a figurative concept?

Considering that I don't believe in god, I don't think god literally exists.

There are a lot of natural phenomena that could have in the past be seen as having a supernatural cause. Some of the miracles in the bible could be this or they could just be myths.

There are those who suggest that moses splitting the red sea was simply dur to there being an unusually low tide and hence a temporary land bridge emerged.

I can't comment on any other specific miracle right now though.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Considering that I don't believe in god, I don't think god literally exists.

There are a lot of natural phenomena that could have in the past be seen as having a supernatural cause. Some of the miracles in the bible could be this or they could just be myths.

There are those who suggest that moses splitting the red sea was simply dur to there being ...[text shortened]... rary land bridge emerged.

I can't comment on any other specific miracle right now though.

So a group of slaves up and left Egypt unmolested by their captors and traveled to the Red Sea just in time for low tide so they could cross? I guess the part where the Egyptians drowning occured because high tide immediatly followed the low tide just as the Israelites had crossed in pursuit? I hate it when that happens!!

Then again, perhaps the Red Sea splitting is just a symbolic reference to something. Perhaps Moses had red hair that with splitting ends.

Originally posted by whodey
So a group of slaves up and left Egypt unmolested by their captors and traveled to the Red Sea just in time for low tide so they could cross? I guess the part where the Egyptians drowning occured because high tide immediatly followed the low tide just as the Israelites had crossed in pursuit? I hate it when that happens!!

Then again, perhaps the Red Sea ...[text shortened]... is just a symbolic reference to something. Perhaps Moses had red hair that with splitting ends.

So a group of slaves up and left Egypt unmolested by their captors and traveled to the Red Sea just in time for low tide so they could cross?

Well, there isn't really any evidence a group of Jewish slaves did leave Egypt at all...but that's what I've heard some suggest.

Then again, perhaps the Red Sea splitting is just a symbolic reference to something. Perhaps Moses had red hair that with splitting ends.

I think the story of exodus actually has some good lessons in it - whether it's true or not. It also has some pretty despicable items in it too. I guess those who believe it's true have to take the good with the bad.