Pope had a 'tranquil night' in hospital

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-02-03 09:23pm

I thought so too. I hope that he'll be able to live a little longer, though, because I've heard that the cardinal who is in the forefront to be a successor is incredibly hardline, far more conservative than the current Pope or really most Catholics. Of course he might not be picked, but still, it's worrysome to me and I'm not even Catholic.

On the other hand an even more conservative Pope could backfire on the whole organization. They could end up alienating all of the moderate Catholics even more, and contribute to the decline of the church.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2005-02-03 09:24pm

I thought so too. I hope that he'll be able to live a little longer, though, because I've heard that the cardinal who is in the forefront to be a successor is incredibly hardline, far more conservative than the current Pope or really most Catholics. Of course he might not be picked, but still, it's worrysome to me and I'm not even Catholic.

I would hope not. The last thing the Catholic church needs right now is a hard line traditionalist. Things have to change, I honestly believe they would be better off with female ordaination or even allowing priest to marry. There are also alot of other issues that need to be decided soon.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-02-03 11:58pm

Frank Hipper wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Show how it is flawed then.
Jeffrey Dahmer was a predator that killed with his own hands.
Jeffrey Dahmer cannibalised his victims.
Murder was the means to his ends-providing himself with compliant sex partners who would never leave him.
Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered in prison.
vs
The Pope promotes policies that spread ignorance of health risks that result in death.
The Pope promotes misogynistic ideals.
The Pope's "victims" suffer as a result of their own actions and beliefs.
The Pope is feeble and ill.

What do any of those distinctions have to do with the fact that sympathy for a dying person is not and should not be automatic? And why did you conspicuously leave out the sheer number of deaths that the Pope has contributed to? Is it worse to be totally responsible for 30 deaths, or partially responsible for millions of deaths?

You made the statement that you must feel sympathy for a dying old man.
I made no demand that you must do anything, I asked how can you not feel sorry for him.

And I gave you my answer. I think he's evil.

I say it depends on how much of an asshole you think he is, and I give an example of a case where no one would disagree that the evil of the individual pretty much nullifies any need to feel sympathy. How is that an "incredibly flawed analogy"? Hell, it's not even an analogy at all; it's a supporting example for my counter-claim.
Giving an example in counter to what I said demands that comparison be made between the two. If comparing the two examples reveals little relationship, how is that not an analogy, and how is it not flawed?

OK, let's review and clarify:

Your question: how can you not feel sympathy for a sick old man? (note: not an argument).

My answer: if someone is sufficiently immoral, I do not feel any obligation to feel sorry for him. To give an extreme example, look at Jeffrey Dahmer.

Your retort: that's an analogy, and I don't like it because Dahmer is worse than the Pope!

Sorry, but if we treated it as an analogy in retort to your claim, we would have to assume that it was intended to attack the logic of your argument, but you made no argument at all! Moreover, analogies are not invalidated by differences in degree.

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2005-02-04 12:44am

Aya wrote:Dahmers dead? When did this happen?

November 28, 1994.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-02-04 12:52am

Hmm. The man has survived Nazi oppression, Communist Oppression,
a plot by the Bulgarians to off him and an Al Qaida plot. He's a tough
old bird.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-02-04 01:48am

I was under the impression that Pope John Paul has spent most of his life being little more than a mouthpiece for the more conservative elements of the Catholic Church; I didn't realize that he was one of the instrumental players in the Catholic anti-condom rhetoric and the destruction of the church-state wall in Italy (which is not nearly as bad as the former, but still annoying).

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-02-04 03:07am

Darth Wong wrote:...If you think someone was enough of an asshole, you are not obligated to feel sorry for him when he suffers...

Somehow I missed that earlier today, it most certainly invalidates any point I was trying to make.

Nevermind....

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-02-04 03:33am

I loved a quote from a TV interview with a Vatican spokesman - "The pope is recovering and sleeping well ..." - the man sleeps well during masses he's performing, I'm not surprised he's sleeping well in a hospital doped to hell on meds.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2005-02-04 05:35am

Hope that old fuck dies in agony!

Here is the sort of shit they think is a good thing!

Vatican Praises Woman Who Died Rather Than Receive Abortion

Burn in hell EVIL asshole!

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-02-04 05:47am

Still, is Pope John Paul calling the shots as far as Vatican policy is concerned? Or is simply an elderly, barely-lucid man that the cardinals can make dance to their strings?

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2005-02-04 05:57am

HemlockGrey wrote:

Still, is Pope John Paul calling the shots as far as Vatican policy is concerned? Or is simply an elderly, barely-lucid man that the cardinals can make dance to their strings?

He is the boss! And "god's" man on earth.

If his church says it is good and he is the boss, well then I blame him for all the shit the church makes up.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2005-02-04 06:10am

HemlockGrey wrote:

Still, is Pope John Paul calling the shots as far as Vatican policy is concerned? Or is simply an elderly, barely-lucid man that the cardinals can make dance to their strings?

Given the state of his health for the last few years he may well have not been driving all of the Catholic Churches regressive policies, however as a younger fitter man he pushed pretty much the same regressive policies and was influential in appointing many of the conservative cardinals you now claim are controlling him.

Also of course according to his own Churches bullshit (which to my knowledge he has always supported) he is Gods primary representative on earth and (save for certain exceptions) on matters of policy infallible.

So to follow through your analogy he may well currently be little more than a puppet but he's a puppet who chose his puppeteers and wrote their scripts for them.

Melchior · Post by **Melchior** » 2005-02-04 06:11am

HemlockGrey wrote:

Still, is Pope John Paul calling the shots as far as Vatican policy is concerned? Or is simply an elderly, barely-lucid man that the cardinals can make dance to their strings?

He is barely-lucid, but unfortunately he is still firmly in power AFAIK.
Another problem with him, besides the view on women and the condom problem, is the fact that he loves to dictate laws to the governament, which always says "yes, your holiness" because of the fear of losing catholic votes.
Do you know Italy's barbaric "artificial insemination" law, where a two-cell embryo is a person? It is his fault.
In certain periods even the communist party listened to him.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-02-04 06:26am

I suppose that Garibaldi and Robert Guiscard had the right idea, then.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2005-02-04 09:31am

Durandal wrote:
FTeik wrote:If a "believer" is wrong about god and heaven, he´ll never notice.

If the atheist is wrong ... . Well, the look on such a persons face in the afterlife should be priceless.
And if people who believe in ghosts are wrong, they'll never notice. But if the skeptics are wrong, then they'll be screwed 'cause Slimer comes after them first!

Notice a pattern here? Perhaps we should believe in every idiotic idea that ignorant primitives dreamt up thousands of years ago.

Obviously the irony got lost. Perhaps i should have added a smiley to make it impossible to miss.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2005-02-04 09:39am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
FTeik wrote:If a "believer" is wrong about god and heaven, he´ll never notice.

If the atheist is wrong ... . Well, the look on such a persons face in the afterlife should be priceless.
Pascal's Wager is one of the oldest arguements out there. This also means it's been refuted for a looong time.

Pascal´s Wagner? Never heard. But it seems you´re confusing science with faith. What would be so special (or frightening) about faith, if it is supported by evidence? If we like it or not people have questions, that aren´t answered by science. Or are answered, but the result isn´t satisfying to them.

Considering all the evil, that happens in this world i truly wish/hope, that there is a "higher" authority.
Considering what a sort of world we live in, any sort of "higher" authority is not one that I would care to give respect to.

I doubt such a higher authority would care, if you respect him or not. Especially if your idea of its job is to make life easy for everyone.

Not that i think this to be the christian or another god of an established religion, but somebody has to be there to make sure justice happens. I could live with a just god. I´m not so sure, if i could live with a god, who forgives.
If justice is being served, tell me, how was the tsunami justified?

[/quote]

I was talking about evil, not nature having a bad day. And you also missed, that i talked about an after-life-kind of justice, where the accounts are finally balanced.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2005-02-04 09:49am

And it's Pascal's Wager, not Wagner.

Pascal's Wager, proposed by Blaise Pascal (June 19, 1623 - August 19, 1662) states that if God does not exist, the skeptic loses nothing by believing in Him; but if He does exist, the skeptic gains eternal life by believing in Him.

Gustav32Vasa · Post by **Gustav32Vasa** » 2005-02-04 10:55am

Ghost Rider wrote:And it's Pascal's Wager, not Wagner.

Pascal's Wager, proposed by Blaise Pascal (June 19, 1623 - August 19, 1662) states that if God does not exist, the skeptic loses nothing by believing in Him; but if He does exist, the skeptic gains eternal life by believing in Him.

What about the other faiths?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-02-04 11:00am

Gustav32Vasa wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:And it's Pascal's Wager, not Wagner.

Pascal's Wager, proposed by Blaise Pascal (June 19, 1623 - August 19, 1662) states that if God does not exist, the skeptic loses nothing by believing in Him; but if He does exist, the skeptic gains eternal life by believing in Him.
What about the other faiths?

Obviously, Pascal's Wager is a false dilemma fallacy. GR already knows this; he was just providing some historical background info.

The Third Man · Post by **The Third Man** » 2005-02-04 11:25am

Faram wrote: Hope that old fuck dies in agony!

Here is the sort of shit they think is a good thing!

Vatican Praises Woman Who Died Rather Than Receive Abortion

On reading the article, I have to say that I'm not at all sure that this is a very good example of the dubious morality of the Catholic Church in regard to abortion. I could easily find it in my atheistical self to praise her, in much the same language as the "Vatican Newspaper" did.

Burn in hell EVIL asshole!

Hold on a minute, there's something dodgy about this sentence. That can't be the Christian hell you're condemning him to can it? If it is and your wish was granted, then you'd be in trouble, wouldn't you?

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-02-04 01:01pm

What would be so special (or frightening) about faith, if it is supported by evidence? If we like it or not people have questions, that aren´t answered by science. Or are answered, but the result isn´t satisfying to them.

Nothing would be frightening about faith supported by evidence. But you fail to see what that would mean. It would no longer require faith. It would become objectively verified, and taken out of the realm of faith.

Of course we have questions unanswered by science. But maybe the questions they want answered, are simply not based on a probable reality? What if the questions are in truth like this:

Is there a God?

Not likely. No evidence shows any intelligence or power needed or detected for the universe to be explained.

Is there an afterlife?

Not likely. To this day we have no objective evidence showing a continuation of life after death. Only unverified psychic disciplines give anectdotal evidence that at BEST looks hopeful, but impossible to prove as of yet.

What is the meaning of life?

To live. Nature is the process we observe. It seems to have one single minded "purpose", and that is to continue life. Unfortunately, it's not a respecter of persons. It cares about the entirety of life and not the individual.

So questions like these may never be answered by science in the way a religious person wants to hear. The answers may simply not be the reality they want.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2005-02-04 01:38pm

FTeik wrote:
FTeik wrote: Not that i think this to be the christian or another god of an established religion, but somebody has to be there to make sure justice happens. I could live with a just god. I´m not so sure, if i could live with a god, who forgives.
If justice is being served, tell me, how was the tsunami justified?
I was talking about evil, not nature having a bad day. And you also missed, that i talked about an after-life-kind of justice, where the accounts are finally balanced.

Why does somebody have “to be there to make sure justice happens”, in what way is justice necessary for the universe to function?