Richard Dawkins to Arrest The Pope

Mikesev said:
Question:

What the hell was God doing when his priests were shoving their dicks into kids?

Would anyone here, knowing that was happening, do nothing?

I know he 'works in mysterious ways' TM and I know he must be busy with all of the natural disaster planning he's been doing lately, but you think he'd be at least interested when one of his guys is raping children?
Click to expand...

What was God doing when the SS was shoving Jews into ovens by the TENS OF THOUSANDS a DAY?
What was God doing when a Boy Scout camp in Iowa was hit by a tornado and a bunch of kids were killed?
What was God doing when the Somali's were/are being slaughtered. (Insert any of the 5MM+ people this past century who were ethnically cleansed...)

Your pathetic attempt at a troll fails because you obviously don't understand most religions' relationship or interpretation of any Higher Power.
 


turbolapp said:
People in positions of power being held accountable.
Click to expand...

11_obama_lg.jpg



You asked.
 
turbolapp said:
I'm really confused as to why this is a religious thread. What does people believing in giant fairies or purple unicorns have to do with raping children? Not a damn thing. Lets stick to the topic at hand plz: People in positions of power being held accountable.
Click to expand...

When your side provides proof that priests aren't held accountable, we can end the topic. But since Ireland and Germany (and the not-new USA) incidents came to light and you see each and every one of those priests being investigated, I'm not sure what else you can possibly find to bitch about.
 
I have VERY mixed opinions on Richard Dawkins.

On one hand, when I read The Selfish Gene in college, the book changed my life. I was "spiritually lost", and finally found something I could completely believe and sink my teeth into. It changed everything for me. He barely attacked anything in this book - just made his amazing arguments for selfish-gene-based evolution.

Now, however, all he does is attack religion in a self-righteous manner. He has been acting like a fucking douchebag, and I'm almost embarrassed to be such an admirer of his early works.

He needs to get back to providing evidence on HIS theories, and stop worrying about disproving others'. The best way he could convince people is through the positive reinforcement of evolution, not bashing on religion.

I guess I just want my old Dawkins back :(
 
<thread theft>
As a related sidenote to those who are interested. If you dig the evolution stuff, then you MUST read The Red Queen:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0060556579/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264994879&sr=8-1"]Amazon.com: The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature (9780060556570): Matt Ridley: Books[/ame]

I've read about 3/4 of this book (I'm going slowly), and it's the most influential thing I've touched since Selfish Gene and Atlas Shrugged.

Ridley is making me understand humanity and the world more than anyone ever has in my entire life. It is helping me realize that a ton of my beliefs and behaviors are completely normal, and has given me a lot of confidence in them.

The reason I'm reading it so slowly is because every night, I read about 5 pages, my mind gets blown the fuck away by some point he makes, and then I close the book to think about it and let it sink in.

If you dig biology, evolution, sex, or all of theabove, move this one up to the top of your list.
</thread theft>
 
bb_wolfe said:
What was God doing when the SS was shoving Jews into ovens by the TENS OF THOUSANDS a DAY?
What was God doing when a Boy Scout camp in Iowa was hit by a tornado and a bunch of kids were killed?
What was God doing when the Somali's were/are being slaughtered. (Insert any of the 5MM+ people this past century who were ethnically cleansed...)
Click to expand...

You enjoy proving other people's points for them?

Edit: On that note btw, watch this if you get a chance. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1173494/ Quite an interesting take on the subject. Regarding your point about me not understanding the theological justifications for God's inaction, I do. It's just logically very weak.
 
Mikesev said:
You enjoy proving other people's points for them?
Click to expand...

Do you enjoy proving mine?

Your pathetic attempt at a troll fails because you obviously don't understand most religions' relationship or interpretation of any Higher Power.
 
bb_wolfe said:
Do you enjoy proving mine?

Your pathetic attempt at a troll fails because you obviously don't understand most religions' relationship or interpretation of any Higher Power.
Click to expand...

And you obviously have never read a philosophical text in your life, but that's beside the point.

I'll simply quote Hume, as he puts it succinctly:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

And what about when God is the source of evil, as in the Haitian quake?

If you want to venture a reasoned theological argument that moves beyond 'he moves in mysterious ways' I look forward to hearing it, it doesn't have to be your own.
 
bb_wolfe said:
When your side provides proof that priests aren't held accountable, we can end the topic. But since Ireland and Germany (and the not-new USA) incidents came to light and you see each and every one of those priests being investigated, I'm not sure what else you can possibly find to bitch about.
Click to expand...

Jeez I didn't think I had to get lazer specific here. Ok. To reiterate.

This topic really should be about (as it relates to the article): The Pope not being above the law and his actions (or non actions maybe in this case) should be held accountable.
 
bb_wolfe said:
Priests don't renounce sex, they abstain. IF you knew anything about the church or priesthood you'd know it's not punitive that a priest not marry/have sex, it's a spiritual abstinence for the purpose of having a closer relationship to God, and serving their parish/diocese to the best of their ability.
Click to expand...

Semantics. My argument doesn't change - normal, heterosexual adult males that are attracted to adult women will be far less likely to voluntarily abstain from sex with women, then a pedophile or a homosexual (not trying to draw any comparisons between the two other than their not being attracted to women).

I never said it was punitive, but would you abstain from sex with your wife? Me neither. But if there is a church where I can be a priest by abstaining from sex with males or children sign me up. It goes against human nature to abstain from a physiological need, so it would be a lot easier for someone that doesn't naturally have those urges to abstain from them, right?

I never said all priests are pedophiles or gay, I'm just pointing out that based on the requirements imposed by the Church nobody should be surprised if that was the type of people that were historically drawn to the priesthood. It's probably less so today because of less sexual repression, but can you imagine the options available to a homosexual 50 or 100 years ago? I wouldn't be surprised if many joined the priesthood out of guilt for their repressed sexuality in an attempt to make things right with God for their "abnormal" feelings.

Nobody can debate/compare the numbers because they don't exist. But nobody can close their eyes to the massive amounts of sexual abuse that have gone on for centuries in the Church either. Can you imagine how rampant it was hundreds of years ago when they were THE authority of the land and played a central role in so many people's lives? Back when nobody talked about sex to anyone - how many cases of sexual abuse would have gone unchecked for years?
 
turbolapp said:
Jeez I didn't think I had to get lazer specific here. Ok. To reiterate.

This topic really should be about (as it relates to the article): The Pope not being above the law and his actions (or non actions maybe in this case) should be held accountable.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think that he wouldn't be under arrest years ago if he had done something wrong?

Some Brit attention whore should not form your opinion of an entity that guides 1/6th of the world's population
 
ricdes said:
what about bush and guantanamo... and Iraq? and Afghanistan?... come on, don't take this shit even more off topic.
Click to expand...

Guantanamo is 100% legit, unlike the rest of Bush's fucked up policies (Patriot act for instance)

The guys at Guantanamo deserve to fucking be there, the rest of it though, you're 100% dead on.
 
Mikesev said:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.

"Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."
Click to expand...

What a ludicrous statement. I can't believe anyone would write such drivel.

If he actively interfered to prevent evil from occurring, then free will would not exist. If free will did not exist, then man would not be accountable for his actions. And if we were not accountable for our actions, then the entire point of life would be null and void.

If you are familiar at all with basic Christian concepts, tenets, perspective, whatever, then you would know that the whole point of life is a 'trial by fire' so to speak, a testing ground to see who can bring their spirit into submission and make the correct decisions using their free will - EVEN in the face of others abusing their free will and committing atrocities.

The whole point of life from the Christian viewpoint is using free will to master free will, to refine oneself in order to be fit for the kingdom. The next life is one devoid of evil, but it is only made possible because of the initial stage where those who are unfit are 'filtered out', so to speak. To say that he is impotent or malevolent is simplistic and misses the greater context. It is a painful, but necessary stage according to the Christian faith. I can't speak for other religions, however.
 
hellblazer said:
What a ludicrous statement. I can't believe anyone would write such drivel.

If he actively interfered to prevent evil from occurring, then free will would not exist. If free will did not exist, then man would not be accountable for his actions. And if we were not accountable for our actions, then the entire point of life would be null and void.

If you are familiar at all with basic Christian concepts, tenets, perspective, whatever, then you would know that the whole point of life is a 'trial by fire' so to speak, a testing ground to see who can bring their spirit into submission and make the correct decisions using their free will - EVEN in the face of others abusing their free will and committing atrocities.

The whole point of life from the Christian viewpoint is using free will to master free will, to refine oneself in order to be fit for the kingdom. The next life is one devoid of evil, but it is only made possible because of the initial stage where those who are unfit are 'filtered out', so to speak. To say that he is impotent or malevolent is simplistic and misses the greater context. It is a painful, but necessary stage according to the Christian faith. I can't speak for other religions, however.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom