Dawkins to arrest Pope

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
let's not exaggerate now.

Serious!

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]And I'm still a litttle confusd about this infallibility issue with the Pope. You say from your explination that he can make mistakes as a human but cannot make mistakes with spiritual issues. Where does this issue with sex abuse fit in here? It is a physical one for sure but if he's covered up this issue to protect the church in his view, why is this no ...[text shortened]... o Catholics believe that he cannot err. The distinction is not between physical and spiritual.

So he has made no moral mistakes here?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
if the pope wouldn't be a symbol of christianity would you defend him so? dawkins is not trying to have him tortured and killed. simply arrested for a crime and he is gathering proof that would justify said arrest. then, if the pope is innocent he will be acquited at the trial.

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.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Moral authority doesn't come from any religion or Jesus for that matter. You're right- people should get a clue about that 😉

Our moral authority is God. As a Christian I believe that Christ is God in the flesh, so my moral authority comes from God. Having said that, Christ set up his church on earth and I believe he has worked through the catholic church and perhaps does today. However, when they deviate from the moral authority of God then they should be called on it. In fact, Martin Luther called them out for having people buy their way out of purgatory which ignited the split with the Catholic church. They had it com'in. 😠

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Yes, according to the story he was made from the dust of the earth I believe. So what?

What have I supposedly assumed that you have a problem with?

I have read a book on the matter that gave me a new perspective on the issue. It is called "Genesis and the Big Bang", by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. In the book, Schroeder discusses ancient rabbinical writings that suggest that they did not believe in the literal 7 day creation. In fact, they believed that mankind was a "work in progress" and came to fruition when God breathed his spirit into Adam. In short, the theory goes that God perhaps evolved mankind physically and then when he had his desired product breathed life into him giving him a spirit which distinguished him from the animal kingdom. Of course, all of these writings were modern science. Their theories were all grounded in expert knowledge of the Hebrew language as well as passed down knowledge. In short, the original Hebrew text was not taken literal enough for which the King James version of the first couple of chapters of Genesis is woefully inadequate.

Originally posted by whodey
I have read a book on the matter that gave me a new perspective on the issue. It is called "Genesis and the Big Bang", by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. In the book, Schroeder discusses ancient rabbinical writings that suggest that they did not believe in the literal 7 day creation. In fact, they believed that mankind was a "work in progress" and came to fruition w ...[text shortened]... ch the King James version of the first couple of chapters of Genesis is woefully inadequate.

Well, you are right that there are plenty of interpretations of the genesis story. I also believe that most people don't take it or most of the bible as being completely literal.

That is why most people pick and choose where they think things are literal or figurative.

I was at a family member's bar mitzvah and in his torah portion there was a rule: if you and another man get into a fight and your wife intervenes and in the process touches the other man's genitals then you have the right to cut off her hand (or arm?).

I am willing to bet that the VAST majority of jews and christians would never support such a law, but it is in the bible. Most would suggest this is a figurative rule for who knows what, but it's there.

In many ways I am glad that most pick and choose what is literal or not since otherwise we would be in a lot of trouble.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think it is very sad. The media has fought a long campaign this Easter to undermine the Pope and implicate him the sexual abuse scandal. The evidence is very thin and certainly nothing suggests he has committed 'crimes against humanity'. Dawkin's hysterical calls for the Pope to be arrested only undermine his claims to objectivity. The guy is a total nutcase and has no credibility.

It turns out the story of Dicky Dawkins arresting the Pope is nothing more than a media exaggeration, for the real story you can follow it here at Dickies website.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415

The guy is a total nutcase and has no credibility.

That's exactly how i would describe the Pope.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Bringing the leader of an organisation that has been found to have been covering up child abuse for the last 50yrs to face some police questions is 'incredibly nasty'?

Yes. It is nasty given that the Pope did not take responsibility of sex abuse allegations until 2001 and has achieved significant reforms to help victims.

What is 'incredibly alling. Perhaps your criticism is better directed at Irish authorities rather than the Pope.

My criticism is directed at the curent Pope because he is the head of the organisation, the buck stops with him, simple as that. There are members, and former members of his organisation who are guilty of covering up child sex abuse, he should personally take those people to the nearest local police station and let them be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. That is the course of action he should take, anything less is nothing short of a disgrace. But i know he won't do that.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Well, you are right that there are plenty of interpretations of the genesis story. I also believe that most people don't take it or most of the bible as being completely literal.

That is why most people pick and choose where they think things are literal or figurative.

I was at a family member's bar mitzvah and in his torah portion there was a rul ...[text shortened]... most pick and choose what is literal or not since otherwise we would be in a lot of trouble.

Yeah. That’s insightful. What I think has happened is that there are a sufficient number of Biblical literalists who have convinced a sufficient number of rational humanists (or whatever) that, absent some overriding considerations, a literal reading of the Biblical texts is/ought to be normative. (Or else at least some of the rationalists have such little understanding of poetic speech—e.g., metaphor and allegory—that they assume the texts must be mainly straightforward narrative or propositional in nature.) I think that is simply erroneous.

A great deal of the Tanach (the Hebrew scriptures), including much of the prophets, is clearly poetic speech. Much else seems to be cast in a kind of poetic prose. There are other literary genres as well (which do not necessarily exclude poetic content): e.g., Job seems to be cast in a dramatic form (perhaps intended to be presented orally, with the cycle of speeches by Job’s “friends” being a kind of “chorus” ); Ecclesiastes seems to be something of a broad existential inquiry (perhaps one of the earliest examples of an existentialist philosophy). There is also just story (whether specifically mythological in nature or not, whether based on any historical facts or not).

My biggest gripe is probably with those who try to turn poetry into straightforward prose statements of specific and “unequivocal” propositional content (e.g., again, in the case of particular prophets whose prophecies are presented as poetry with a lot of, sometimes shifting, metaphor). Poetry is simply not intended to be read that way; metaphor tends to be multivocal in (potential) meaning—i.e., deliberately fraught with multiple possibilities. But, more generally, I think that a lot of people (singling no one out in particular here) fail to respect the diversity of literary genres—which diversity seems to me evident.

In my experience, just about everybody “picks and chooses”, even those who might identify themselves as “literalists”—if nothing more than in the sense of picking and choosing which texts ought to be seen as providing the “proper” context for which other texts. One can see this most clearly in the “faith versus works” debates on here.

Job seems to be cast in a dramatic form (perhaps intended to be presented orally, with the cycle of speeches by Job’s “friends” being a kind of “chorus” )
I think it works best in lego:

http://www.thebricktestament.com/job/index.html

Originally posted by galveston75
So he has made no moral mistakes here?

He has. As I acknowledged, the Hullermann case, in which he was archbishop of Munich, showed a severe failure in his skills as an administrator, perhaps even immoral negligence. This does not, however, bear on this discussion of papal infallibility. Papal infallibility does not mean the Pope cannot make moral mistakes; it means he cannot make a mistake in defining a moral. I cannot, however, think of a single example in which a Pope has defined a moral (except perhaps Humanae Vitae).

Originally posted by Proper Knob
My criticism is directed at the curent Pope because he is the head of the organisation, the buck stops with him, simple as that. There are members, and former members of his organisation who are guilty of covering up child sex abuse, he should personally take those people to the nearest local police station and let them be dealt with by the appropriate a ...[text shortened]... tion he should take, anything less is nothing short of a disgrace. But i know he won't do that.

My criticism is directed at the curent Pope because he is the head of the organisation, the buck stops with him, simple as that.

That is not how the Catholic Church understands it. The Pope is not the CEO of some conglomerate corporation. Each church comes under the authority of its ordinary, either a bishop or archbishop. The buck stops there.

. There are members, and former members of his organisation who are guilty of covering up child sex abuse, he should personally take those people to the nearest local police station and let them be dealt with by the appropriate authorities.

No action can be brought unless victims themselves go to the authorities.

Originally posted by Conrau K
He has. As I acknowledged, the Hullermann case, in which he was archbishop of Munich, showed a severe failure in his skills as an administrator, perhaps even immoral negligence. This does not, however, bear on this discussion of papal infallibility. Papal infallibility does not mean the Pope cannot make moral mistakes; it means he cannot make a mistake in d ...[text shortened]... k of a single example in which a Pope has defined a moral (except perhaps Humanae Vitae).

You know my friend that we all want to protect and side with what we believe in and not always see or admit to the bad that might be in it. It's human nature.
But You should really take some time, stand back away from this and many other issues with the Catholic Church and really do some soul searching and really put stock into the Bible and not what the church says and does. There is really something wrong there and the ship is sinking fast.

Originally posted by galveston75
You know my friend that we all want to protect and side with what we believe in and not always see or admit to the bad that might be in it. It's human nature.
But You should really take some time, stand back away from this and many other issues with the Catholic Church and really do some soul searching and really put stock into the Bible and not what the church says and does. There is really something wrong there and the ship is sinking fast.

What a laugh. So far, whenever you have entered any discussion about Catholic beliefs, you have shown total ignorance. This latest discussion about papal infallibility (which, mind you, sounds very much like the ones we have had before) just confirms this. I am not sure anymore whether you are deliberately obtuse or simply lack basic cognitive abilities. Don't condescend to me; examine your own freaky cult and the damage it has done.

Originally posted by vistesd
Yeah. That’s insightful. What I think has happened is that there are a sufficient number of Biblical literalists who have convinced a sufficient number of rational humanists (or whatever) that, absent some overriding considerations, a literal reading of the Biblical texts is/ought to be normative. (Or else at least some of the rationalists have such little ...[text shortened]... r which other texts. One can see this most clearly in the “faith versus works” debates on here.

I think we definitely agree, although you put it much better 🙂

I haven't done the research and the reading of the tanach though so I can't comment on what parts are literal or what are intended to be poetic or otherwise.