The popes at it again..

[tibilicus]

Look, I know this is a difficult thing for you to grasp but Churchmen are in the buisness of saving souls, not making life easy.

The Pope cannot broaden his flock by sacrificing doctrine on the alter of popularity, if he does that the Faith ceases to have the power to save anyone.

Now, I really want to hear what Docter Williams has said that has you all riled up.

From your post before this you seem to suggest I can't accept to whole im an evil sinner thing. So I have a question for you. Why can't you just accept when we die we become worm food and that's then end of it? You know as well the Hobbit has some pretty wonderful characters in that much like the bible. I'm starting to think that maybe Gandalf the Gray could be God because it's written in a pretty convincing narrative book.


And doctor Williams had said many things. In particular it was his comment about Sharia Law being accepted in the UK. He knew that wouldn't go down to well with his fellow church members or any one else for that matter. What he did know however is that it would bring the attention of the media on to the church. Something which he felt he needed to do because lets be honest religion isn't really all that important in comparison to what it was here 50 years ago.

[tibilicus]

Also that link to the daily telegraph site above is ignoring the obvious. It claims the pope never said anything offensive towards gays yet this is what the BBC has him credited as saying.

saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour was as important as protecting the environment.

I fail to see how anyone can find that not to be a very backward or crude statement. Then again it is the BBC's opinion against the telegraphs. I wonder which one i'm going to hold closer.. A neutral media source or the daily toriegraph whoops I mean telegraph...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Also that link to the daily telegraph site above is ignoring the obvious. It claims the pope never said anything offensive towards gays yet this is what the BBC has him credited as saying.



I fail to see how anyone can find that not to be a very backward or crude statement. Then again it is the BBC's opinion against the telegraphs. I wonder which one i'm going to hold closer.. A neutral media source or the daily toriegraph whoops I mean telegraph...

The BBC is left-wing, not neutral. Conversely the Telagraph has become increasingly pro-Catholic.

[tibilicus]

The BBC is left-wing, not neutral. Conversely the Telagraph has become increasingly pro-Catholic.

No it is neutral. it may appear left wing to compensate for the fact the media is as a whole is generally left wing. Due to the fact it has access to public funding it is obliged to be politically neutral. Trust me I'm liberal and left wing and the BBC isn't.

The telegraph on the other hand is right wing. That's a certainty. You can probably guess my opinion on that paper due to the fact I hold it in the same fold as the daily mail for my most disliked papers. This isn't about politics though so moving swiftly on.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

At a very basic biological level yes. The fact is it is wrong though due to the fact 10 % if that are actually gay. now that's still 90% of the population to reproduce. Doesn't seem like a problem to me.

To go back to the point you gathered from the BBC tonight that isn't what he said despite the fact those words were quoted on the official BBC news website?

Oh and thanks for pointing at my spelling and structure of my sentences. I'm actually a minor dyslexic so have to take a while to put my sentences together and even then they're sometimes muddled. Maybe it's Gods punishment for me though hey? I guess i'm just not as perfect as a catholic!

Nowhere does the BBC quote the Pope as saying, "saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is as important as protecting the environment." It's in the preface to the report, and there are no quotation marks. The BBC has paraphrased what they believe the Pope to have said, several commentators, including those interviewed by the BBC have noted that he said no such thing.

As far as your spelling goes, I'm more than a "minor dyslexic" and I manage. My mother teaches dyslexics and I don't recall her ever saying that it affects sentence structure. It certainly has nothing to do with being Roman Catholic or not.

Though why you mention that at all, I don't know. One would think that you are under the missaprehension that I am myself a Papist.

No it is neutral. it may appear left wing to compensate for the fact the media is as a whole is generally left wing. Due to the fact it has access to public funding it is obliged to be politically neutral. Trust me I'm liberal and left wing and the BBC isn't.

The telegraph on the other hand is right wing. That's a certainty. You can probably guess my opinion on that paper due to the fact I hold it in the same fold as the daily mail for my most disliked papers. This isn't about politics though so moving swiftly on.

The BBC has got into trouble numerous times for not being balanced, for being anti-religious, anti-monarchy and anti-establishment. Just because the BBC is obliged to be neutral doesn't mean it is. Priests are obliged to be Holy, but you clearly don't believe that. If you think the BBC is neutral then I submit that it is merely less left wing than you are.

[tibilicus]

Nowhere does the BBC quote the Pope as saying, "saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is as important as protecting the environment." It's in the preface to the report, and there are no quotation marks. The BBC has paraphrased what they believe the Pope to have said, several commentators, including those interviewed by the BBC have noted that he said no such thing.

Even still why would it of made it into the news and why would so many groups be outraged by his remarks? You seem to ignore the fact that his remarks were offensive and many gay rights groups have already condemned and are outraged by his remarks. Maybe you need to stop defending some one who has made a clear statement which has offended many people.

As far as your spelling goes, I'm more than a "minor dyslexic" and I manage. My mother teaches dyslexics and I don't recall her ever saying that it affects sentence structure. It certainly has nothing to do with being Roman Catholic or not.

Dyslexia can effect the way you read sentences as well as your ability to put them together. It also effects other things like hand writing and the like. It also obviously effects my reading speed and my ability to read stuff clearly hence why I often don't proof read anyway. I find your statement here quite offensive because you not only question me but then go on to suggest I'm a retard who can't spell. I don't have a clue who on earth you think you are by saying this but I'm incredibly offended you would try and insult my intelligence on this level. Your post carry an extremely snobbish undertone in that bit of your post.

I sincerely hope your not this offensive in real life by trying to get low blows over on peoples intelligence and there learning problems. You know if your going to try and get me with another low blow like that don't even bother posting in this thread again.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Even still why would it of made it into the news and why would so many groups be outraged by his remarks? You seem to ignore the fact that his remarks were offensive and many gay rights groups have already condemned and are outraged by his remarks. Maybe you need to stop defending some one who has made a clear statement which has offended many people.



Dyslexia can effect the way you read sentences as well as your ability to put them together. It also effects other things like hand writing and the like. It also obviously effects my reading speed and my ability to read stuff clearly hence why I often don't proof read anyway. I find your statement here quite offensive because you not only question me but then go on to suggest I'm a retard who can't spell. I don't have a clue who on earth you think you are by saying this but I'm incredibly offended you would try and insult my intelligence on this level. Your post carry an extremely snobbish undertone in that bit of your post.

I sincerely hope your not this offensive in real life by trying to get low blows over on peoples intelligence and there learning problems. You know if your going to try and get me with another low blow like that don't even bother posting in this thread again.

What may be God's greatest gift to us of all is free will. You may believe as you choose, as may I.

You have studied myths and stories, compared cultures and religions and have, you believe, hit upon a central idea -- that it is all "make-believe." Well-intentioned, perhaps, but not to be taken seriously when compared to the absolutely proveable results of scientific research. For you, Life, Self-conscious sentience, and the entire panapoly of existence are merely the random by-products of happenstance following the eruptive dissolution of a singularity -- and ultimately meaningless since they have their brief moment in the sun ameliorated only by the chance to transmit their DNA towards a future that will inevitably be blotted out when the nearest star begins its inevitable decay. Or, as Shakespeare said, "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

I look out a an incomprehensibly vast universe that all our science has only BARELY begun to describe and see the hand of God. I see the vibrant spirit that shines from my daughter's eyes, and in that light I think I glimpse a bit of God's promise of Heaven.


Can I prove you wrong? No. Can you prove me wrong? No. We will come upon the answer in time -- or not, if your version of life is correct.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Even still why would it of made it into the news and why would so many groups be outraged by his remarks? You seem to ignore the fact that his remarks were offensive and many gay rights groups have already condemned and are outraged by his remarks. Maybe you need to stop defending some one who has made a clear statement which has offended many people.

No, he hasn't made a clear statement. People have gone, "Ah, the Pope! He must have meant Y when he said X." Now he may well have meant Y, but that does not change the fact that he said X, not Y.

As far as Gay Rights groups go, it is their job to be outraged. They exist to prevent us from overstepping a certain line.

Dyslexia can effect the way you read sentences as well as your ability to put them together. It also effects other things like hand writing and the like. It also obviously effects my reading speed and my ability to read stuff clearly hence why I often don't proof read anyway. I find your statement here quite offensive because you not only question me but then go on to suggest I'm a retard who can't spell. I don't have a clue who on earth you think you are by saying this but I'm incredibly offended you would try and insult my intelligence on this level. Your post carry an extremely snobbish undertone in that bit of your post.

I sincerely hope your not this offensive in real life by trying to get low blows over on peoples intelligence and there learning problems. You know if your going to try and get me with another low blow like that don't even bother posting in this thread again.

Dyslexia can affect the way you read sentances, because your eyes don't track, but it doesn't affect the way you form them because Dyslexia is primarily a disfunction of reading, not a disfunction of Grammar.

Now, let me make this very clear:

I was offended because you suggested that, A. I believed I was better than you because I was a Papist, when I would not and am not (a Papist), B. That you should be excused from the correct use of spelling and grammar because you claim to have a "minor" dysfuction of reading.

If you have trouble writing that would be dysgraphia, if you have trouble with composing written sentences that is the fault of your teachers. Nowhere did I suggest you were mentally deficient but I am not impressed that you claim dyslexia as an excuse.

Nor did I like the your snide tone.

Now, it is Christmas Eve and this is the point at which I sign off until Boxing Day.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

From your post before this you seem to suggest I can't accept to whole im an evil sinner thing. So I have a question for you. Why can't you just accept when we die we become worm food and that's then end of it? You know as well the Hobbit has some pretty wonderful characters in that much like the bible. I'm starting to think that maybe Gandalf the Gray could be God because it's written in a pretty convincing narrative book.

Did I say you were evil? I said you weren't perfect, perfection is the standard for entry into heaven.You wanted to know why you, as a "good person" couldn't get into heaven and I responded by pointing out that nobody is perfect, including you. As far as the Hobbit goes, the blunt answer is that Tolkien wasn't claiming any form of divine inspiration.

And doctor Williams had said many things. In particular it was his comment about Sharia Law being accepted in the UK. He knew that wouldn't go down to well with his fellow church members or any one else for that matter. What he did know however is that it would bring the attention of the media on to the church. Something which he felt he needed to do because lets be honest religion isn't really all that important in comparison to what it was here 50 years ago.

He said it was "unavoidable": http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm. A topic here at the .Org a few months ago proved him exactly right. As I said, he's a priest, he's not out to win popularity contests.

[tibilicus]

Did I say you were evil? I said you weren't perfect, perfection is the standard for entry into heaven.You wanted to know why you, as a "good person" couldn't get into heaven and I responded by pointing out that nobody is perfect, including you. As far as the Hobbit goes, the blunt answer is that Tolkien wasn't claiming any form of divine inspiration.



He said it was "unavoidable": http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm. A topic here at the .Org a few months ago proved him exactly right. As I said, he's a priest, he's not out to win popularity contests.

He isn't out to win a popularity contest no. But are you honestly saying he wasn't doing it for publicity?

And another problem I find with religion is the whole they seem to think there better than you approach. It's actually rather offensive to people to call them imperfect because they don't believe in something which has no solid evidence. To get at my original point again basically look at this statement.

saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is as important as protecting the environment.

Now you wont find that offensive due to your personnel beliefs but lets see if you find this offensive..

saving humanity from Christian or Roman Catholic behaviour is as important as protecting the environment.

Are you telling me that wouldn't be offensive to you as a catholic. I'm sure if you were gay you would be offended by a statement such as the first one then wouldn't you. yet your trying to justify it as not offensive. I'm straight and even I find that statement offensive and quite vulgar.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He isn't out to win a popularity contest no. But are you honestly saying he wasn't doing it for publicity?

To be perfectly honest I think the Archbishop is not the most grounded or worldly of people and outside the Church and Seminary he's a fish out of water. He tends to put his foot in it.

And another problem I find with religion is the whole they seem to think there better than you approach. It's actually rather offensive to people to call them imperfect because they don't believe in something which has no solid evidence. To get at my original point again basically look at this statement.

You need to proof read better, you have the wrong "there", makes it a bit difficult to read. To be honest though I find it offensive as well, and I don't think I'm better than an atheist. I don't go in for earthly regeneration of sanctification.

To deal with your point though, I saw the BBC tonight, as far as I can gather he did not say that. What he actually said is that men are men, women are women and the only good sex is the baby-making kind after the relationship has been sanctified by the Roman Church.

Now, I never actually said he was right, what I said was that he's not saying it just because he's Roman Catholic, and that there is a strong secular anti-homosexual arguement which predates Christianity.

Anyway, you have to admit that at a very basic biological level he has a point. If the only sex was homosexual then hummanity would be finished in a generation.

Ultimately this has to do with power=politics, not homsexuality; that's just a side issue. The problem with gender theory for the Roman Catholic Church is that if men and women are essentially the same. and are only distinguished by learned behaviours, then the arguement for closing the priesthood to women begins to break down.

[tibilicus]

The BBC is left-wing, not neutral. Conversely the Telagraph has become increasingly pro-Catholic.

To be perfectly honest I think the Archbishop is not the most grounded or worldly of people and outside the Church and Seminary he's a fish out of water. He tends to put his foot in it.



You need to proof read better, you have the wrong "there", makes it a bit difficult to read. To be honest though I find it offensive as well, and I don't think I'm better than an atheist. I don't go in for earthly regeneration of sanctification.

To deal with your point though, I saw the BBC tonight, as far as I can gather he did not say that. What he actually said is that men are men, women are women and the only good sex is the baby-making kind after the relationship has been sanctified by the Roman Church.

Now, I never actually said he was right, what I said was that he's not saying it just because he's Roman Catholic, and that there is a strong secular anti-homosexual arguement which predates Christianity.

Anyway, you have to admit that at a very basic biological level he has a point. If the only sex was homosexual then hummanity would be finished in a generation.

Ultimately this has to do with power=politics, not homsexuality; that's just a side issue. The problem with gender theory for the Roman Catholic Church is that if men and women are essentially the same. and are only distinguished by learned behaviours, then the arguement for closing the priesthood to women begins to break down.

At a very basic biological level yes. The fact is it is wrong though due to the fact 10 % if that are actually gay. now that's still 90% of the population to reproduce. Doesn't seem like a problem to me.

To go back to the point you gathered from the BBC tonight that isn't what he said despite the fact those words were quoted on the official BBC news website?

Oh and thanks for pointing at my spelling and structure of my sentences. I'm actually a minor dyslexic so have to take a while to put my sentences together and even then they're sometimes muddled. Maybe it's Gods punishment for me though hey? I guess i'm just not as perfect as a catholic!

[Lord Winter]

At a very basic biological level yes. The fact is it is wrong though due to the fact 10 % if that are actually gay. now that's still 90% of the population to reproduce. Doesn't seem like a problem to me.

To go back to the point you gathered from the BBC tonight that isn't what he said despite the fact those words were quoted on the official BBC news website?

Oh and thanks for pointing at my spelling and structure of my sentences. I'm actually a minor dyslexic so have to take a while to put my sentences together and even then they're sometimes muddled. Maybe it's Gods punishment for me though hey? I guess i'm just not as perfect as a catholic!

and once again you dodge the actual point in any post thrown at you. We all agree that pope bashing gays = bad. We're just trying to argue that:

1. All religion doesn't equal evil
2. Everyone who's not an atheist isn't an idiot
3. That this one incident doesn't prove that the catholic church is evil.

[tibilicus]

and once again you dodge the actual point in any post thrown at you. We all agree that pope bashing gays = bad. We're just trying to argue that:

1. All religion doesn't equal evil
2. Everyone who's not an atheist is an idiot
3. That this one incident doesn't prove that the catholic church is evil.

I never said all religion was evil, more that I merely disagree with all religion. Just because I disagree though doesn't mean I think of those Buddhist monks as evil people.

I also don't think all non atheists are idiots. Misguided in my opinion yes, but no not Idiots.

Again I don;t think the church is evil but do I think it's corrupt? yes. I also have a problem that the Pope acts as God amongst men and lives in a palace and gets people to kiss his ring. Who gives him the right to do that? It also seems to me that his loyal flock spends more time worshipping him than their so called God..

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

2. Everyone who's not an atheist is an idiot

Pray explain how this isn't a troll.