Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Hypocrite Pope

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    London N16
    Posts
    675

    Default

    We were talking secularism and fundamentalism. Atheism is a whole other road to go down...

  2. #12
    Senior Member Rook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patman Post View Post
    We were talking secularism and fundamentalism. Atheism is a whole other road to go down...
    Oh, then you were just wrong. Secularism does not necessarily contain a belief that religious observance has no place in a modern world as very many secularists are also devout christians/muslims/jews etc. It's also rather laughable to suggest that secularists are the equal of any religious fundamentalist.
    Last edited by Rook; 05-07-2013 at 02:26 PM.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    London N16
    Posts
    675

    Default

    Coming in half way through a string of posts is not easy. The debate concerned my use of fundamentalist to describe certain secularists

    Quote Originally Posted by Patman Post View Post
    In my experience, rampant/rabid/rabble-rousing secularists are not live-and-let-lives. They are as likely as anyone else to want to impose their beliefs on society...
    I still stick by my observations...

  4. #14
    Senior Member Rook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patman Post View Post
    Coming in half way through a string of posts is not easy.
    Err, I was the second contributor to this thread and I've followed it all the way through . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Patman Post View Post
    The debate concerned my use of fundamentalist to describe certain secularists

    I still stick by my observations...
    But not defend them it seems . . .

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    London N16
    Posts
    675

    Default

    If you've been following all the way through, you'll note the original proposition was that the Pope was a hypocrite. I stated why I don't accept that description.

    The subsidiary discussion was about my use of fundamentalist in conjunction with secularist. I explained my use. You may disagree. But apart from debating whether or not using words in unfamiliar contexts is a legitimate way of attempting to get a point across, I don't see there's any further mileage to be had...

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patman Post View Post
    In my experience, rampant/rabid/rabble-rousing secularists are not live-and-let-lives.
    I really have never met or heard of a "rampant/rabid/rabble-rousing" secularist before. Rook is quite correct in defining secularism as the movement to keep the state seperate from religion. What on Earth is wrong with that notion? Most athiests are also secularists, but then so are many Christians. In Muslim Turkey, there is also a long tradition of secularism. The great men who founded America were privately either Christian (like George Washington) or Agnostic (like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin). However, they were all avowed secularists - something the evangelical fundamentalists in America often forget.

    I suppose if an athiest (as supposed to a secularist) wanted to arrest people for believing in God and burn all copies of the Bible or the Koran, then perhaps he would be the equivalent of a religious fundamentalist. However, I'd really like to know if such a person exists. Most athiests I know are gentle souls. The American particle physicist Stephen Weinberg famously said that with or without religion, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. However, to make a good person do a bad thing, you need religion*.

    * I don't necessarily agree entirely with this quotation. There are other forms of brainwashing - fascism and socialism for example - that can act as pseudo-religions and make a good person do a bad thing. I can't imagine that every Nazi who worked in a concentration camp was born an evil person.
    Last edited by Northumbrian; 05-07-2013 at 07:49 PM.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Rook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patman Post View Post
    If you've been following all the way through, you'll note the original proposition was that the Pope was a hypocrite. I stated why I don't accept that description.

    The subsidiary discussion was about my use of fundamentalist in conjunction with secularist. I explained my use. You may disagree. But apart from debating whether or not using words in unfamiliar contexts is a legitimate way of attempting to get a point across, I don't see there's any further mileage to be had...
    Yes, clearly I disagree. But if you don't want to attempt to defend or expand upon your comments then fine, that is your right - although I don't see why you are so shy about it. The 'subsidiary discussion' arose naturally from the debate, and is therefore a legitimate topic of discussion

  8. #18
    Senior Member Rook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    The American particle physicist Stephen Weinberg famously said that with or without religion, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. However, to make a good person do a bad thing, you need religion*.

    * I don't necessarily agree entirely with this quotation. There are other forms of brainwashing - fascism and socialism for example - that can act as pseudo-religions and make a good person do a bad thing. I can't imagine that every Nazi who worked in a concentration camp was born an evil person.
    [off-topic]
    I agree the quote is flawed, but only when viewed out of context - IIRC, the quote comes from a speech he made concerning religion vs science. He was discussing the wrongs religion has done and stopping them taking the credit for ending slavery (etc). At the end of a long paragraph explaining how christianity endorsed slavery for many centuries, he says that line. So whilst, when you read the line in isolation, it can be viewed as him saying that ONLY religion makes good people do evil, I don't really think he believes that himself.
    [/off-topic]

  9. #19
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Apparently, Pope Francis has used his first Easter sermon to urge a peaceful resolution to conflicts around the globe such as Korea and Syria.

    http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...y-address?lite

    A noble sentiment, but rather hypocritical don't you think when he has openly in the past supported Argentina's illegal claim and aggression against the Falkland Islands? Then again, perhaps like Argentina's fascist foreign minister, he believes the Falklanders don't exist. At least he is 76 years old and only has one lung. Hopefully this old c**t won't be around for too long.
    Just because he is Pope does not prove that he is wise or knowledgeable. He does not even know Comparative Religions.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •