大象传媒

"Unalloyed success" - my my, Will, you really are the comedian! He got home alive and without being arrested, and a few sycophants enjoyed their effusive luvviness. Is that what qualifies for "unalloyed success" these days?

No real fireworks in those links. I think all but one of the regulars of this blog would have told you much of what's in there before they were published. So the Vatican stonewalled the Murphy commission on procedural grounds and is lobbying as hard as it can everywhere to push its values onto anyone it can. Anyone else not surprised?

The bit about how the Vatican supported Saddam Hussein was new to me and certainly interesting.

And yes, with even British Catholics not being bothered to show up in large numbers, 'unalloyed success' may be a bit rosy to describe Ratzi's visit.

"Unalloyed success"

I agree with you, William.

It would be good to compare the attendance at all the papal events and parades with the attendance at the protests. Not easy to assemble the figures, so, to be fair, let's just compare the two main London events (which, by the way, will make the protest look far better than it is, when considering the national picture):

Attendance at the vigil in Hyde park: 80,000 ('a few sycophants' apparently, so we are told on good authority by "he who must never be contradicted").

Attendance at the main 'Protest the Pope' London rally: 10,000

But hey, let's not allow *the facts* to get in the way of a great bit of wishful thinking...

LSV , what are you on. Im starting to feel you're a jack of all trades and master of none. I had hoped you might be intelligent enough to see that 80,000 supporters-many of whom would have been bussed in by their Church and a media who fawned over him as if he was a kindly old grandfather does not make for an unalloyed success. Pales into insignificance when you consider the potential number of Catholics, the ease of access between Ireland and England and the amount of Catholics of Irish or eastern european decent living in the UK. What was the figure for Pope John Paul at the Phoenix Park- 1.25 million? History won't make such a great distinction between 1979 and 2010 but the figures are telling.
The fact there were 10,000 protesters perhaps shows many people weren't bothered to care enough because he's an irrelevance. He's just a public figure who says stupid, insensitive things like so many other public figures, as long as he doesn't directly intefere in their lives they don't have the motivation to do anything more than tut and show their apathy

Ha ha ha ha ha! VSL, you are a hoot! Happy Christmas to you, old bean :-)

Ryan -

There are 'the facts' and there is 'the interpretation of the facts'. One of my many trades is clearly that of messenger boy, merely delivering the evidence which others (such as yourself) take it upon themselves to interpret.

And, oh, what an interpretation!

It is deliciously mesmerising to see the contortions some people will go to, in order to make 'the facts' fit their particular demands. (Not since reading R.C. Sproul's anatomy defying acrobatics to make 1 Timothy 2:4 say the opposite of what it actually says, have I been so enthralled by such cunning eisegesis!)

All the 80,000 at the vigil were just a lot of sycophantic sheep bussed in - so they don't count (and think of all the people who should have turned up, but didn't!). But the fact that there were only 10,000 protesters proves that most people were apathetic about the Pope's visit - so we deduce that that obviously and irrefutably means that the entire population of the UK plus Ireland less the 80k 'sheeple' (+ the sheeple at the other papal events) less the 10,000 vociferous Dawkinsistas become 'protesters' by default!!!

I've heard of 'managing' information, but this really is an admirable effort, Ryan.

Well done.

(Ever thought about becoming a lawyer? Or maybe you're one already?)

I didnt say they don't count but should be seen in context. The context of how they relate to the timeframe and location- as in- the Pope wasn't in afghanistan. He was next door to a country a few decades back had 1.25 million in attendance under a similar invitation

Welcome to the club Ryan. You are now officially admitted to that select group of people whose modest statements have been twisted by LSV into the straw man of having made irrefutable claims.

Pull up a chair, let me pour you a glass. Well done, for someone who has been on this blog for less than half a year to have achieved that prestigious status. Gorkesx, Helio, natman and I are pleased to have you join us.:) Lachman is also a card carrying member, isn't he?

Though with LSV throwing that disingenuous approach about rather frequently lately, the exclusivity of that status is diminishing a tiny bit. I fear it may not take that long before we will have to accept some theists who wouldn't touch LSV with a barge pole and think as low of him as we do. Any bible waving theist could get in soon if LSV keeps up the way he's doing lately.

Back when I was young...........

PK -

"Welcome to the club Ryan. You are now officially admitted to that select group of people whose modest statements have been twisted by LSV into the straw man of having made irrefutable claims."

Hey, PK, why don't you send personal invitations to OT and Check_That_Out to join your little gang?

Oh wait...

How silly of me!

They are one and the same person! Only one invitation needed then. That's convenient.

Oh, by the way, Mr Klaver...

You mentioned the phrase 'modest statements'. Care to explain how your new-found buddy managed to cast all sorts of aspersions on me simply in response to a few simple statistics? I mean, if my post #3 does not rate as 'modest', well, I'm afraid you need to avail yourself of a better English dictionary (and, of course, #6 was simply an attempt to defend myself. But such simple justice is quite beyond your understanding, that I can see.)

"80k at the vigil / 10k at the protest" elicits the response of: "LSV , what are you on. Im starting to feel you're a jack of all trades and master of none. I had hoped you might be intelligent enough to see that..." Clearly Ryan is someone who gets very emotional over extremely bland and prosaic statistics. Now you've taken him under your wing in your little club, you'd better calm him down.

Admittedly I did include a little jab at Helio in #3, but I think most sane, sentient and generally functional human beings would think it a bit of a blinkin' daft comment to refer to tens of thousands of people as 'a few sycophants'. But, Mr Moral Indignation, don't bother exerting yourself to issue a rebuke to your old hoary friend from Heliopolis - I am well aware that *consistency* and *intellectual integrity* are not really your 'cup of tea', are they?

(Oh, and by the way, my post #3 was just agreeing with something William wrote, which Ryan seemed to find offensive. So is your club also going to be waging a campaign against our noble host, I wonder? No, I don't think you'd have the guts, would you?)

Im perfectly calm. You're the one who branded the 80,000 *sheeple* and the 10,000 *darwinistas*. The point had already been picked up before you entered the fray, by Klaver and Helio. My point to you is deeper- relating to the Pope's visit- your admiration of it in previous posts and your unfaltering championing I find a little dispiriting, because however people portray you, you're a thinker. You actually bother to take a stand and think independantly. I guess I find it hard to understand how you were so impressed by all the pageantry and the spectacle of the event but have never really once broached the subject of all the wrong doing , evil and pain that Church and office have caused. I think you have a better role model in Rowan Williams than the Pope, yet your happier to put the evil out of your mind and be seduced by all the colourful costumes and pomp

Given the comparison of attendance figures between the recent 'state' papal visit and the last 'pastoral' (with the implication that an official state visit should give more validity to the event) and that the previous visit, by John Paul II, gathered much larger crowds, it's fair to concede that this event was not as well attended. The population in 1982 was a lot lower than it is now and people have more disposable income now, so statistically, attendence figures should've been much higher.

Also, given there was very little in the way of protests at the 1982 visit (aside from the Ulster Unionists) yet this time it gathered a 10k strong crowd at a single event, it's also fair to concede the protest was more successful that previously.

Manipulation of figures is a time-honoured tactic, but even LSV cannot deny that the recent papal visit gathered less support and more protest than the previous. If the Vatican wishes to consider this unalloyed success, then it shows how much their standards are slipping.

Ryan -

OK, fair enough. Perhaps I have misread your intentions on this thread.

However, after Helio dismissed Catholics (and probably all Christians by implication) as "a few sycophants", it's hard to be civil, and I hastily placed you in the same category as someone like him. Apologies.

I am not ignoring the problems of the Catholic Church, and, in fact, I am not a Catholic myself. I don't agree with the Catholic view of contraception, for example. I disagree with a whole range of Catholic doctrines, although I think they have a point with certain issues.

However, I do agree with William that the visit was a success - however that is to be understood. As a Christian I felt that the Pope's visit was an affirmation of the reality of Christianity generally, and it was clearly an encouragement to many Catholics - especially young Catholics.

Even if I were one of the protesters, I think I would acknowledge that the visit was a success. This would be no endorsement of the Pope's views, but a simple acknowledgment of fact. Hence my use of statistics to underline my point.

Natman, the "Caped anti-Crusader", confounds the impressions of virtually all the media and public opinion to paint the Holy Father's visit as only a modest success. Can't the smaller crowds compared to 1982 or 1979 be attributed to the sustained onslaught of "aggressive secularism" over the last 30 years?

Theophane

It would appear from the wikileaks that "aggressive secularism" is very much alive and well inside the Vatican. Just like many political parties, saying one thing in public while pushing its own agenda in private.

My reading of the low turn out would be that after John XXIII and the hope and inspiration of Vatican II, the promise for the future of John Paul I, followed by the gradual realisation and dreadful disappointment that John Paul II was dragging us backwards and that Ratzinger would be even worse, would account for the lack of numbers.

One old lady who was interviewed by the 大象传媒 on Princes Street in Edinburgh really summed it up, "I am here to pay respect for the office he holds. However, I am not happy about what he is doing and he has a lot of questions to answer."

Museums have never been blessed with big crowds which is probably why most of them dont charge an entrance fee.

Theopane,

"Can't the smaller crowds compared to 1982 or 1979 be attributed to the sustained onslaught of "aggressive secularism" over the last 30 years?"

I would guess that to some part that is true, not sure how big a part. But let's say for now that 'aggressive secularism' was primarily responsible for the decline in numbers. Wouldn't that then simply indicate how much ground catholicism has lost in the UK over the past decades and that catholicism as a whole is a faltering enterprise in the UK? If that were so, then the popes visit may have lived up to expectations, but taking into account the new reality of lost ground, the expectations had already been lowered to the level of a faltering enterprise. I'm not sure that meeting drastically lowered expectations should count as an 'unalloyed success'.

Imagine you had some shares in a multinational company that gives a profit warning halfway into the quarter. Due to all sorts of bad news, net profit will be only 8% of what it had been on average for quarters the past 7 years. Then when they announce their results, they are actually 10% of previous quarters, rather than the 8% that was projected. Would you feel only happy that the lowered expectations were met and even exceeded, or wouldn't there also be a voice in your head like 'Hmmm shame, I always used to get 10 times more than this.'?

I am still hoping for a serious whistle blower to expose the really dirty inside Vatican stuff. It will happen.

"Vatican Bank mired in laundering scandal

This is no ordinary bank: The ATMs are in Latin. Priests use a private entrance. A life-size portrait of Pope Benedict XVI hangs on the wall."



... and yet the emotional roll over, cover their eyes, ears & mouths, too afraid to speak the truth ...

Theopane,

"sustained onslaught of "aggressive secularism" over the last 30 years?"

By this I assume you mean people not falling for the nonsense which many more people used to and resisting the exertion of power from a 'religious' organisation who has no right to interfere in their lives. I regard that as human rights and self determination not an onslaught.

You almost seem to be suggesting that there is something wrong with being a secularist, that it is some way seditious when in reality it is just people exercising their free will.

Responding to Dave's point about "exercising ... free will". Pope Benedict addressed young people and seminarians at Yonkers, New York, on 19th April 2008, addressing "freedom" in a way which, i would suggest, is at least an interesting perspective;

"The fundamental importance of freedom must be rigorously safeguarded. It is no surprise then that numerous individuals and groups vociferously claim their freedom in the public forum. Yet freedom is a delicate value. It can be misunderstood or misused so as to lead not to the happiness which we all expect it to yield, but to a dark arena of manipulation in which our understanding of self and the world becomes confused, or even distorted by those who have an ulterior agenda.

Have you noticed how often the call for freedom is made without ever referring to the truth of the human person? Some today argue that respect for freedom of the individual makes it wrong to seek truth, including the truth about what is good. In some circles to speak of truth is seen as controversial or divisive, and consequently best kept in the private sphere. And in truth鈥檚 place 鈥� or better said its absence 鈥� an idea has spread which, in giving value to everything indiscriminately, claims to assure freedom and to liberate conscience. This we call relativism. But what purpose has a 鈥渇reedom鈥� which, in disregarding truth, pursues what is false or wrong? How many young people have been offered a hand which in the name of freedom or experience has led them to addiction, to moral or intellectual confusion, to hurt, to a loss of self-respect, even to despair and so tragically and sadly to the taking of their own life? Dear friends, truth is not an imposition. Nor is it simply a set of rules. It is a discovery of the One who never fails us; the One whom we can always trust. In seeking truth we come to live by belief because ultimately truth is a person: Jesus Christ. That is why authentic freedom is not an opting out. It is an opting in; nothing less than letting go of self and allowing oneself to be drawn into Christ鈥檚 very being for others (cf. Spe Salvi, 28)."

Actually, there was a comment from an American journalist, John L. Allen Jr, which seemed a reassurance just before the UK visit;

"...he benefits from the bar being set low ... anything that happens short of absolute disaster can be spun as a success. Further, most people have never seen the pope before, and what they've heard second-hand usually isn't good -- that he's cold, aloof, authoritarian, repressive, etc. Measured against that caricature, contact with the real man always seems a pleasant surprise. (Perhaps this is the genius behind the Vatican's apparent PR bungling: they've created a scenario in which Benedict basically can't lose.)"

Theophane,

I read that and it came across as 'You can have any kind of freedom you like, so long as it's doing what god says'.

That is, in essence, the entire basis of believing in god; "Do as I say, or suffer for ever."

"Do as I say, or suffer for ever." I fear that may be a slight over-simplification Natman.

Have only just noticed the link to John Allen above, on US-Vatican relations after WikiLeaks. D'oh! (Not that i have any sympathy with the idea peddled recently in L'Osservatore Romano that Homer Simpson is a Catholic).

Theophane,

Trying to spin 'under the yolk of religion' as freedom is brave, but ultimately flawed as it basically boils down to natman's succinct summary.

The whole thrust of the argument is that god exists and things are better if you give yourself over to faith, if you don't the consequences are dire. All religions say that and none of them can prove it and they all believe each other is wrong. Sorry but to me that is giving up your freedom to some ancient crutch designed to explain what man didn't have the tools to explain and which then expanded into a tool for social engineering and control.

That whole speech from himself is the good old religious carrot and stick nonsense when the carrot does not exist and the stick is made up scaremongering. My 'dark arena' is all the better for there being no homophobic deity in it, I am sure it would be a hell of a lot darker if there was. I would also point out that many gave themselves over to the religion and were abused perhaps if they had never discovered this truth they would have been spared that 'dark arena'.

So to respond directly, I find the popes take on freedom fundamentally flawed, arrogant, untruthful psychological bullying and interesting only insofar as it confirms my opinion of him and the controlling nature of religion in general.

Theophane,

""Do as I say, or suffer for ever." I fear that may be a slight over-simplification Natman."

I'm sorry, did I misunderstand the part in nearly every religion where punishment in a version of hell awaits all those who don't believe? The Abrahamic religions are especially hot on that kind of thinking.

If you want to dress it up with words like 'love' and 'sacrifice' and 'devotion', you can, but basically it boils down to that "over-simplification".

Unless of course you want to admit that an atheist like me will be accepted into your imaginary heaven for exercising my freedom of choice not to believe.

LSV - I am disappointed! As an Anglican you are, of-course, a Catholic: you are just not one of the Roman variety.

I am, however, intrigued at the idea of Anglicans, outraged over a theological issue, offering physical violence to our Roman brethren. If the notion seems absurd a personal anecdote from one who has been on the receving end of such a doctrinally-inspired personal attack might give Christopher and Theophane cause for some concern.

I was once engaged in a disussion with a (fellow) Anglican on a subject of no less importance than the lectionary; following one of my comments he said:

"O Parr, you are so, SOO naughty! I dooon't know what I'm going to do with you! Oh... Oh... Oh... I'm going to stamp on your foot!" - upon which he suited the action to the words. As Christopher (for so he was called) was not (shall we say?) noticeably ascetic this was more painful than it sounds; so, you Romanists, you have been warned! :-)

So, on Parrhasios's definition, Homer Simpson may be a 'Catholic' after all, but "not one of the Roman variety".

Actually of course Parrhasios's anecdote is frightening. But Dave and Natman - what would you make of this, from an article by Victoria Coren in the Observer last week; "If the big religions were destroyed, humanity would simply invent new, smaller, madder ones."

"If the big religions were destroyed, humanity would simply invent new, smaller, madder ones."

A big if. I'd like to think that the big religions would be destroyed by reason and rational thinking. If that were the case, no one would feel the need to create smaller, madder ones.

No, no, Parrhasios! You are underestimating the savage violence of Anglicans.

Pope Benedict's invitation to disaffected Anglicans to join the Catholic Church will cause social meltdown, as I am sure you know in your heart of hearts.

Yes, I think Benny's behaviour is certainly on a par with Pastor Jones - maybe even worse! I mean, can you imagine what would happen if Anglicans started to get violent? It's a truly frightening thought - in fact, so terrifying that I am beginning to feel a certain trepidation rising in me as I write. Rioting in the streets? Burning cars? Bombings?

Oh no! Far worse than that...

This is the reign of terror that I imagine we could witness...

Ringing the bells of the Parish Church for five minutes longer than usual as an act of petulance, just to annoy Catholic neighbours on a Sunday morning. (An oppressive regime of auditory fascism.)

The over-extravagant use of Roget's Thesaurus when embellishing the writing of 'concerned' missives to the Church Times. (The pen is more bloody than the sword - oh, well we know how many have been slain by this wicked instrument!)

And perhaps the most apocalyptic of all...

Affecting an embarrassed silence when bumping into former congregants when shopping in Marks and Sparks (the burning heat of theological constipation manifested in the buccal region is almost too traumatic a vision to describe).

So, yes, Francis Campbell's prediction paints a frighteningly and vividly bleak picture of what could come to pass if Benny's words are heeded. Will our society survive the upheaval, I ask myself....?

Theophane,

I think that we are seeing that breakup of christianity happening at the minute with smaller madder sects appearing. I am not an expert on Islam or any other major religion to comment on what is happening there. It will be a slow process but from my point of view smaller madder sects are a benefit and a problem.

Smaller sects mean less power for religion as a whole and so allowing secular values of equality to replace the discriminatory religious ones and a greater separation of church and state. The problem is the smaller madder sects (like we see in the USA) can cause lots of trouble and conflict like the WBC. Much of this comes when they scream in frustration for religious law to be enshrined in civil law and have not the democratic power to achieve it (even though they have their god in their camp). That frustration is and will continue to cause problems.

I would love for it to happen as Natman describes through reason and rational thinking, but I think it will be a combination of people leaving religion and people becoming more entrenched in the madder sects (leaving a smaller more ineffectual, politically speaking, moderate centre).

So I would predict some rocky times ahead and I think the global anglican community should schism as it is even now stretched too far between the right and the centre for it to be in any way effectual. Let the conservative right split and split into the smaller and madder and let the moderate centre progress. It might even become stronger and more focused again which should give it more longevity. I also think Roman Catholicism will go the same way eventually as there are already too many internal conflicts which are only being held in place by a dictatorial, secretive and conservative power structure holding onto its people and priests with as tight a grip as any tranny. Those structures are the ones which last longer but split more explosively and when the end comes it will be swift.

When and over how long this will happen, I have no idea, but it would not surprise me to see extremists on the far right of christianity rivalling what we would see as radicalised Islam. As I have pointed out before if you look at what is happening in Africa you can see a template for oppression, violence and radical extremism being fed from conservative christianity from the USA. I hope I am wrong.

So I don't know if that was what you were asking me but its my take on the quote you supplied.

LSV, I understand your sarcasm, but I think that actually there are bigger problems afoot (if you will pardon the pun) than anglicans getting violent. There are many mild mannered anglicans who have steely hearts but I guess most would see violence as a last resort, I do not regard that as weakness.

As for the pope poaching, no more than I would expect from that ego and that despot.

Yeh, lets get back on topic here.

Personally I think there us a great deal to be said for benign Anglicanism. Jesus was a liberal, after all.

Let us not fly off the handle at Heliopolitan's claim that "Jesus was a liberal, after all". Some aspects of His teaching - forgiveness being the most important - might be used to support such a position. But are we to believe that Jesus was a 'liberal' in the same way as those who turned out to "Protest the Pope" in September?
Under the inspirational captaincy of Pope Benedict XVI, the embattled Christian community of these islands, as it were, compelled the forces of fashionable opinion to 'follow on' after the first day, before inflicting a massive defeat after four days, by an innings and several thousand runs.

Looking at this 'Ordinariate' for disaffected Anglicans, a possible response from Archbishop Rowan Williams might have been "Get your tanks off my lawn!"

Theophane,

Have you been taking something you shouldn't ? or to use a phrase from MCC "you are a dose" (not sure what he meant exactly but it had me reaching for the condoms)

The only things I saw benny inspire was division, discrimination and resentment. He may have inspired the sycophants to be more sycophantic but that's not really much of an achievement.

If I was charitable I would say there was probably some short term halo effect resulting in some consolidation of faith for some folk caught up in the 'event' but beyond the very faithful I would say the impact was from 'couldn't care less' to 'what's that human rights denier doing here at our expense'.

When JP2 came here very few people would have said boo, today under the inspirational leadership of benny, most people feel quite comfortable being overtly critical if they want and to protest outright if they want. That loss of respect and deference to the pope and the church in general must be seen as a failure, even to the most ardent supporter. And to those pesky secularists it is simply vindication that things are moving in the right direction along a slow path to freedom from religion.

One point i would make here is that, if you compare the press comment from before and after the visit, Pope Benedict has, at least to some extent, "silenced his critics".

There's an awful lot at stake here. Some people accord credit to President Reagan, after he challenged East Germany to "tear down this wall", for bringing about the fall of the Berlin Wall and the (relatively) peaceful demise of communist power. But this is to ignore what happened in Poland, where Solidarity, profoundly inspired by the moral and intellectual leadership of Pope John Paul II, refused to buckle under the full weight of communist government attempts to destroy it, and effectively removed the communists from power by democratic means in the summer of 1989 - facilitating the fall of the Berlin Wall a few months later. When told of plans to invite Pope Pius XII to Yalta to discuss the Post-War settlement of Europe (in which he would have been a powerful voice in favour of Poland's independence), Stalin famously asked derisively "How many Divisions has the Pope?". A few generations later, and particularly after Pope John Paul II's very first visit to Poland as Pope in 1979, it became clear that the Pope had adequate "Divisions" to consign communism to the dustbin of history.

Theophane

A very interesting reading of history from the time of Jesus up to JP II.

Was Jesus a liberal? Mmmm, depends what you mean by a liberal. If you mean the tambourine-wielding, sandal-clad hippies you often portray many of us to be, no I dont think he was. (Neither are we.)

If you mean that he was a radical who would demolish much of the pharisaic, pompous, clap-trap you present on here as Catholicism, yeh, he was a liberal alright.

According to the gospels, Jesus had much more in common with those who protested against Ratzinger than with Ratzinger himself. He would have been distributing mill-stones everywhere Ratz went.

He tended to set himself against morally omnipotent busybodies, bullies, the establishment - both church and state - and walked beside the outcast and the poor. Thats why they killed him. He was a threat, a radical... a liberal.

Who would execute someone for being 'nice'? He was a political transgressor and suffered the death of a political transgressor. (Stoning was the prescribed penalty for blasphemy.)

And all hail to JPII for everything he did in bringing down the Berlin Wall and helping the demise of Communism. Except that, while doing this, he utterly walked out on his priests and people in Latin America and stood idly by as they were butchered. Well actually, he didnt stand idly by, he set himself against them and, along with his pal Ratz, disowned the Christ-like Archbishop Romero and put the seal on his execution.

He also protected the odious Marcel Maciel.

What's the weather like up there in your ivory tower? Down here in the real world with the non-deluded, its tougher, but a much more honest place to be.

The various viewpoints on here make for great debate, but LSV stands out as a particularly unpleasant sort which always makes for a difficult discussion. Frustrating yet sort of sad. Anyway, back on topic.

The wiki-cables suggest that there is degree of corruption within the Vatican - shocking, right? - as seen with the disgraceful attempts to conceal the vast swathes of child abuse perpatrated by their priests. There seems to be a mafia-esque approach to things by Don Ratz and his irrelevant cronies; we can do what we want, but you must pay and obey.

romejellybeen above...well said.

For "communism" in the Pontificate of John Paul II, read "relativism" in that of Benedict XVI, Inshallah.

Don't listen to him LSV.

Theopane, Pope Benedict doesn't represent "Captaincy for the embattled Christian community of these islands" He represents the interests of his vision of the Catholic Church. As for you claiming Pope John Paul soley kicked out Communism, it's far more likely a big dollop of desire for Democracy & Capitalism were in the mix too. In fact, don't many religions- Catholicism included, have more in common with Communism & Fascism, with their suffocating control and interference in peoples lives, & the undercurrent of fear used to implement their wishes, than Democracy?

At least Anglicanism works on the template of Democracy with the Synod. I'm sure many Christians who identify & recongnise the gentler, friendlier face of Anglicanism would have preferred Rowan Williams talking to the people instead of the Pope. Would be wonderful if he strenghened the voice of mainstream Anglicanism,which is far more representative of where the majority of the population is at and ditched the far right elements of the Church. Let them join the sinking ship of Catholicism

By all means, let Archbishop Rowan Williams "strenghen the voice of mainstream Anglicanism", but it can only happen, in Pope Benedict's words at Westminster Abbey, in "...an obedience which leads us together to a deeper understanding of the Lord's will, an obedience which must be free of intellectual conformism or facile accommodation to the spirit of the age." This presupposes of course that "obedience" is not merely a type of neurosis, as it so often seems to be characterised nowadays.

Theophane

Dont you think it is extremely arrogant of Ratz to be lecturing Anglicans, and anyone else for that matter, on "The Lord's will" when he has utterly ignored "The Lord's will" in far weightier matters?

All this marbles-in-mouth, Theo-babble you are indulging in on here is all highly irrelevant. It is also delusional.

Is the truth so painful for you that you just cut off emotionally and psychologically and pretend that everything is all sand-castles and icecream?

E-volve (@ 38) -

"The various viewpoints on here make for great debate, but LSV stands out as a particularly unpleasant sort which always makes for a difficult discussion. Frustrating yet sort of sad."

I tend to agree with you, E-volve. In my humble opinion, LSV's behaviour on this thread has been nothing short of an utter disgrace. Shall we run through the appalling catalogue of his misdemeanours? I am sorry to have to put you through this ordeal again, but justice demands it. We cannot shirk our duty as 'freedom of speechers' to expose those who so wantonly and arrogantly abuse the wonderful gift we so cherish.

It all started with a violent reaction to a perfectly innocent and quite harmless comment by our good friend and comrade Heliopolitan, when he made the incontestably valid point that all the tens of thousands of Catholics who turned out to attend the Pope's events were just "a few sycophants". Well, I mean, that's a perfectly sober observation - even almost a self-evident truth. We all know that.

But poor comrade Heliopolitan was then subjected to the most unwarranted and vituperative tirade in post #3.

First of all, this LSV fellow (if I can dare to dignify him with such a title) had the sheer temerity to try to cosy up to our esteemed host by 'agreeing with him'. Uggh. What nauseating flattery! And then he deceitfully gave the impression of intellectual superiority with his insolent quotation of attendance statistics at two London events. Ridiculous!! What on earth was he trying to prove with that sort of tripe? It was obvious that he was intent on only one thing: humiliating our dear comrade with the facts. The facts!!! Laughable, isn't it?

A polite and deeply respectful observation by our esteemed friend did not deserve such a derisory and insulting rejoinder.

But this was not his only crime. His violent progress through this thread led to him deciding to apologise to another blogger in #12. What a deeply unpleasant - even sinister - thing to do. To apologise. No! What punishment does this heinous crime really deserve?

Why can't LSV just learn (it's not that difficult, really) to be like the atheists on this blog: pleasant people, sensitive people, always respectful of views they disagree with (particularly those views that go by the name of 'religion'), never mocking those views, never creating absurd caricatures of those views, never dismissing arguments they disagree with as 'pseudo-philosophical nonsense', always ready to provide scientific evidence for their viewpoint when asked, never calling people 'cod philosophers' and certainly never ever describing the writings of their opponents as 'cabbage'.

And one more thing I wish LSV would learn... to stop being so bloomin' sarcastic all the time (but, to be fair to the old chap, I suspect that he probably feels that insane comments deserve no less than this quality of response. And I suppose on that final point I tend to sympathise with him).

On a lighter note, the esteemed Mrs and I cracked open a bottle of Sloe Gin which has been merrily maturing for the last few months in the cupboard, and it's lovely.

LSV - Comedy Genius! Who'd have thunk it

romejellybeen;
"Is the truth so painful for you that you just cut off emotionally and psychologically and pretend that everything is all sand-castles and icecream...in your ivory tower?"
I cannot come up with a better conception of "the truth" than the one outlined by Pope Benedict in the passage in post #18; "In seeking truth we come to live by belief because ultimately truth is a person: Jesus Christ. That is why authentic freedom is not an opting out. It is an opting in; nothing less than letting go of self and allowing oneself to be drawn into Christ鈥檚 very being for others (cf. Spe Salvi, 28)."

Theophane,

You could find what you have written in any brainwashing book, or chamber. It is complete nonsense. You are describing BLISS, which for many is induced by drugs. You have no idea of truth because you are making it up based on your delusion. Why does someone have to 'let go of themselves' to be under your bliss ? That is delusion. If the truth is out there, it's a hell of a lot more obvious than you would have us believe.

Dave (@48) -

"You have no idea of truth because you are making it up based on your delusion."

I can think of certain other people on this blog for whom this statement is true - people who claim that a certain species of organism, restricted to the surface of a planet orbiting a rather average star, whose ideas are simply the product of the mindless shuffling of atoms, can speak with utmost confidence and certainty about the fundamental nature of reality.

And so can these people really have any idea about 'truth'?

And then when challenged on such matters, these same people do some rapid and embarrassed backpedalling from a belief in logic, proof and objective truth - as can be seen on many of the recent threads.

So, Theophane, as you advised me earlier (in #40) on this thread when I was being attacked: don't listen to this illogical guff from Dave. He hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

And then when challenged on such matters, these same people do some rapid and embarrassed backpedalling from a belief in logic, proof and objective truth - as can be seen on many of the recent threads.

So true. You've got me for one bang to rights smack in the middle of an existential crisis. Only today I turned to colleague after a morning's hard slog with curly brackets and switch statements and said, "You know what, I don't think I can do this job any more. I'm so embarrassed to say it, but I'm frantically backpedalling from my belief in logic."

And on the way home I couldn't shake the feeling that I am nothing more than a brain in a vat and that all I think is true is merely illusion. And as for that image of a bespectacled Austrian, well he gives me nightmares.

Still, it could be worse, at least I don't need a cuddly bearded old sky daddy to convince me that there is meaning in the universe.

Nah, scrub this, sarcasm really is the lowest form of wit.

LSV,

I can think of certain other people on this blog for whom that statement is true - people who claim that a certain species of organism, restricted to the surface of a planet orbiting a rather average star, whose ideas are simply the product of the mindless shuffling of atoms, can speak with utmost confidence and certainty about the fundamental nature of reality based on a specific translation and collection of a bunch of books that are between 1500 and 4000 years old. Despite all the evidence to the contrary.

"...when I was being attacked..."

Help, help, I'm being repressed! Open debate and argument with people who disgree with me -must- mean I'm being persecuted! It's okay, I have a bag of sarcasm and ad hominem attacks. That'll show 'em!

logica_sine_vanitate,

(@49) you need to look up logic in a new dictionary, the one you have is broken.

Oh, and then check out irony and then reread #49

Then, if you can stop laughing, get back to me.

grokesx,

I used to write some Prolog, mind churning stuff, but I have backpeddled now and write all my routines in ice cream.

Natman -

Poor poor little Natman. He doesn't understand the metaphorical use of words (like 'attacked'). Silly me, I knew I should have written 'criticised', but even then I suppose he would have accused me of harbouring a persecution complex.

I'll give the atheists one thing on this blog: they are cunning (in a kindergarten kind of way). They can heap all sorts of juvenile mockery on beliefs they can't refute, and when those who hold those beliefs object, these 'naturalism of the gaps' simpletons retort with: "Aha, persecution complex". Apparently Christians are supposed to 'take it all on the chin', but the sensitive little materialists have kittens when anyone dares to question their incoherent nonsense ("boo hoo, that nasty unpleasant person is using sarcasm... and I can't take it").

A bit pathetic, to say the least (but hardly surprising from people who know they're wrong).

Throw stones, and stones will be thrown back. Simples.

grokesx -

"...sarcasm really is the lowest form of wit"

So they say (whoever 'they' are).

" Apparently Christians are supposed to 'take it all on the chin'..."

Matthew ch5 v38 and 39

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

So, yes, I believe you are supposed to 'take it on the chin'.

Dear me, don't you know your bible? Shame that even a atheist like me can point out some of the most basic teachings of your christ.

Oh, and LSV, your 'logic' -has- been refuted, it's just you run away from threads that do so and comment on them no more.

Natman (@ 55) -

"...But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. ..."

Oh, are you admitting you're evil then? And if I don't think you're evil, then maybe I am allowed to resist you?

If I did think you were 'evil', then I probably would ignore you. So the fact that I contend with you should make you feel just a little pleased.

@56 -

"Oh, and LSV, your 'logic' -has- been refuted, it's just you run away from threads that do so and comment on them no more."

Do feel free to elaborate...

LSV,

Evil? Me? To the core. I don't believe in gods, I don't believe in hell and I certainly don't believe that the sacrifice of a tiny portion of an omniscient and omnipotent god will save a small minority of the human population that believe in a specific way and be saved from an eternity of suffering for choosing to exercise their free will. Of course, that's the biblical definition of 'evil', which pretty much includes everyone that the beholder doesn't agree with.

As for the logic part - if you've another source of input into the human psyche other than sensory input, you've yet to explain it and show how it leads to the development of knowledge.

Your fanatical adherance to a bronze age myth that never went away if laudable, if not misguided, but if you believe in Yahweh the high god of the Caananites, then you have to (by use of logic) accept that all other gods ever invented have the possiblity to exist. Oh, and ghost and fairies, and the flying spaghetti monster. They all have as much evidence for their existance as your specific god. If you can show otherwise, please do.

Natman -

"...I certainly don't believe that the sacrifice of a tiny portion of an omniscient and omnipotent god will save a small minority of the human population that believe in a specific way and be saved from an eternity of suffering for choosing to exercise their free will. Of course, that's the biblical definition of 'evil', which pretty much includes everyone that the beholder doesn't agree with."

Oh dear. It seems that I'm in trouble as well then. Gulp.

"As for the logic part - if you've another source of input into the human psyche other than sensory input, you've yet to explain it and show how it leads to the development of knowledge."

Well, I explained that you were simply interpreting information in a naturalistic way, based on the assumption that the philosophy of naturalism is true. When I contended that we cannot know that this philosophy is true, since it depends on an epistemology which is self-refuting, my argument was not refuted, but merely dismissed as 'based on my own dogmatic assumptions'. So if you are going to accuse me of arguing on the basis of assumptions, then you should be willing to listen to a logical critique of your own - something you are manifestly not prepared to do.

"Your fanatical adherance..."

Fanatical? Been on the booze, Natman? Come on...

If you want to throw around the word 'fanatical', I can't imagine there is any philosophy as 'fanatical' as the idea that the extreme and exquisite complexity and intricacy of life could have magically self-assembled in a mindless universe. You need far more 'faith' (according to the Dawkinsian definition) to believe that, than to believe that there is a causal connection between intelligence and complexity (a connection that the empirical inputs of daily life demonstrate to us only too clearly. But, hey, if you want to believe something that even your lovely empiricism denies, that's your business. Everyone to their own brew, I suppose...).

LSV,

I'm prepared to accept that the basis of modern scientific theory is based upon the presumption that the naturalistic philosophy is true as it cannot be proven. However, and this is big however, it's a presumption based upon evidence and a lack of evidence to suggest an alternative. It's not an admission of a faith-based ideal, as there are vast amounts of evidence to support it, even if they cannot prove it.

The supernatural alternative, however, cannot be proven and cannot even be assessed at all. Therefore, despite your insistance, it cannot be given equal prominence.