ROFL! This should be fun to watch...

[Edbear]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10637869&ref=facebookheadlines

[Dave Lobster]

Pfft.. the government didn't let Geert Wilders in. They certainly wont let that happen. No spine amongst the lot of them.

[Elysium]

About time someone did something about that pope.

[MisterD]

Pfft.. the government didn't let Geert Wilders in. They certainly wont let that happen. No spine amongst the lot of them.

Except that the Immigration Tribunal overturned the ban - he showed his film at the House of Lords at the start of last month.

This Pope thing looks like it's a bit more thought-out than the usual "Arrest George Bush for war-crimes" posturing.

[Dave Lobster]

Except that the Immigration Tribunal overturned the ban - he showed his film at the House of Lords at the start of last month.


That's good. I did not know that.. I don't see what the fuss was about.

[Forest]

Pfft.. the government didn't let Geert Wilders in. They certainly wont let that happen. No spine amongst the lot of them.

The British allowed Pinochet to be arrested (but shamefully they let him go).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet%27s_arrest_and_trial

[Usarka]

isn't the pope an agent of god? Better get that fulla too....

[Dave Lobster]

isn't the pope an agent of god? Better get that fulla too....

Brian Tamaki has 'agents' now?

I thought they were disciples or something like that...

[Patrick]

Diplomatic Immunity and all... and he fact he wouldn't get within 10 feet of the old perv, with all those body guards and all....

[Edbear]

isn't the pope an agent of god? Better get that fulla too....

What I find very interesting is that for centuries, the Catholic Church, (and other churches), have been doing things that God definitely doesn't like thinking they are untouchable, and it's judgement time for them. This is the start, watch this space! All the churches are going to come under scrutiny now.

Tamaki came on the scene way too late and was too greedy too fast. You can't get away with this sort of stuff these days...

[Edbear]

Diplomatic Immunity and all... and he fact he wouldn't get within 10 feet of the old perv, with all those body guards and all....

May be right, but influential people are making noise and victims are coming out of the woodwork everywhere. If Dawkins raises a legal challenge, his profile will be a significant factor, especially if he can get others to join.

I have little time for Dawkins, personally, but even less for such as the Pope...

[avgas]

Not to mention that time the pope tried to turn Luke to the darkside.
But then Lukes dad saved him.

The pope can shoot lightning from his hands!

[mashman]

Diplomatic Immunity and all... and he fact he wouldn't get within 10 feet of the old perv, with all those body guards and all....

Depends on if they turn up alone, or with Police backing to serve a warrant or whatever they do... could indeed be a giggle...

[Patrick]

As I said.... Diplomatic Immunity.

If a death of an innocent driver caused by a drunken Chilean "Diplomat" 25 years ago meant nothing could be done, a cover up of kiddy fiddling is unlikely to have any differnet result. Sadly.......

[MisterD]

As I said.... Diplomatic Immunity.

The point of the exercise is to test whether the Vatican is real country to which diplomatic immunity should apply...the legal opions of the guys Hitchens and Dawkins have retained is that the answer to that question is "no".

[mashman]

As I said.... Diplomatic Immunity.

If a death of an innocent driver caused by a drunken Chilean "Diplomat" 25 years ago meant nothing could be done, a cover up of kiddy fiddling is unlikely to have any differnet result. Sadly.......

The article does state, in regards to the Vatican "...its relations are not of a full diplomatic nature"... couldn't that mean that the Pope won't be covered by the rediculous diplomatic immunity rules?

[rainman]

Not to mention that time the pope tried to turn Luke to the darkside.
But then Lukes dad saved him.

The pope can shoot lightning from his hands!

Hilarious! Bling to you.


I have little time for Dawkins, personally

Without completely derailing the thread, why's that? His views on evolution?

[rainman]

Ah, the truth is so much more mundane than the bull the newspapers print: http://sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/2010/04/12/arresting-comedy/

[BiK3RChiK]

What a shame! I'm on Ed's side... would have been interesting to watch at least.

[Edbear]

Hilarious! Bling to you.

Without completely derailing the thread, why's that? His views on evolution?

Not really, it's his attitude. Most of what he says about religion is quite accurate, but he has become to enamoured with his own status and the fawning of his supporters that he is arrogant and opinionated and brooks no opposition or questioning of his beliefs. He has allowed his opposition to the church to cloud his objective scientific judgement.

I have read his books and have criticised his reasoning on several issues. One simply cannot have an open-minded, fair and objective disussion with him on the subject of creation v. "evolution". I put evolution in speech marks as many confuse exactly what it means. His dogmatic prejudice against religion and the God of the Bible does not allow him to look objectively at scientific evidence regarding whether the Universe and Life could come about without direction from an intelligence.

Even many evolutionists believe that something or someone had to create the Universe and life at least initially, and are open minded as to where the science may lead.


Ah, the truth is so much more mundane than the bull the newspapers print: http://sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/2010/04/12/arresting-comedy/


What a shame! I'm on Ed's side... would have been interesting to watch at least.

Yeah, just shows how reliable newspapers can be. :bye: Still I reckon the world-wide publicity about the Catholic Church is yet in its early stages. Much more to come I reckon! :yes:

[rainman]

...he is arrogant and opinionated...

I quite like that, tbh. Birds of a feather, and all that. :)


...and brooks no opposition or questioning of his beliefs.

That's a big call - I listened to his recent talk from when he was in NZ and he is pretty dismissive of creationists and theists generally, but I think it's just he can't be arsed having the argument. He is still as open to real evidence as any scientist, I suspect. Having had lots of religious arguments myself I do sorta see his point. I mean, it's not like he's going to win fair and square, is he? Can't argue with faith, after all.

Being fairly close to a non-theistic quasi-buddhist-type thing myself, I don't find his views at all threatening or offensive, but having once been fairly conventionally Christian (both pentecostally and conservatively), I can see how he might indeed offend many.

Ah well, sticks and stones (and Catholic priests), eh?

[Edbear]

I quite like that, tbh. Birds of a feather, and all that. :)

That's a big call - I listened to his recent talk from when he was in NZ and he is pretty dismissive of creationists and theists generally, but I think it's just he can't be arsed having the argument. He is still as open to real evidence as any scientist, I suspect. Having had lots of religious arguments myself I do sorta see his point. I mean, it's not like he's going to win fair and square, is he? Can't argue with faith, after all.

Being fairly close to a non-theistic quasi-buddhist-type thing myself, I don't find his views at all threatening or offensive, but having once been fairly conventionally Christian (both pentecostally and conservatively), I can see how he might indeed offend many.

Ah well, sticks and stones (and Catholic priests), eh?

As I said, not many can argue with his criticisms of the churches and religions, and most creationists have their heads in the clouds as well. But he, like many evolutioninsts is similarly dismissive of any person of any persuasion or any scientific studies that point towards creation as needing to be a deliberate act rather than arising purely from natural chemical processes. There is significant evidence from purely scientific research that show key processes cannot occur naturally and require deliberate manipulation. It is the question this evidence raises that people like Dawkins cannot abide.

[Dave Lobster]

There is significant evidence from purely scientific research that show key processes cannot occur naturally and require deliberate manipulation. It is the question this evidence raises that people like Dawkins cannot abide.

Significant is a little extreme.. Maybe he can't abide it because it's as significant as creation ;)

[Edbear]

Significant is a little extreme.. Maybe he can't abide it because it's as significant as creation ;)

Okay, extremely significant then... :msn-wink:

Fact is that when one carefully researches and studies all the evidence of natural chemical processes and the processes and requirements for the formation of life, it leaves the question of how it could occur if not by purely natural processes? Scientific study clearly shows the at crucial stages, things had to occur simultaneously and completely in conflicting environments each part requiring the other to form and remain existing.

If one only considers the facts of science, life as we know it is impossible and could never occur by natural means. It is simplistic and completely ignoring the scientific facts for anyone to claim that anything can happen given enough time and space. That is fairy story stuff.

[dipshit]

Galileo would be chuffed.

[Edbear]

Galileo would be chuffed.

Him and everyone else who was abused by the church! :yes:

[Dave Lobster]

If one only considers the facts of science, life as we know it is impossible and could never occur by natural means. It is simplistic and completely ignoring the scientific facts for anyone to claim that anything can happen given enough time and space. That is fairy story stuff.

Maybe that's why science continually looks for more answers, instead of saying that 'a god did it'.

[Edbear]

Maybe that's why science continually looks for more answers, instead of saying that 'a god did it'.

Genuine science is open to the idea of direct creation, not closed minded. Even many evolutionists, as I have often brought out, believe the facts of science mean there had to be an act of creation by some form of higher power.

Even though I personally believe in direct creation, how it was accomplished remains as much a mystery to me as to anyone else. The fact that so much had to occur in a manner at direct odds with natural processes and demonstrably cannot occur as some evolutoinists wish to believe, still remains.

As I said, according to purely scientific discoveries, it would appear that life and for that matter even more so, the formation of the Universe, is impossible. The sheer power and precision, the contradictions and the incredible control evident is simply beyond the realms of science to explain or to even theorise about.

[avgas]

Maybe that's why science continually looks for more answers, instead of saying that 'a god did it'.
Yeh your probably right. Its way easier for me to just say "She'll be right" with my engineering than do any work.
I mean whats the likely hood I am wrong? Not worth worrying about it really......

oh lord lol

[avgas]

There is significant evidence from purely scientific research that show key processes cannot occur naturally and require deliberate manipulation. It is the question this evidence raises that people like Dawkins cannot abide.
Yep only a foolish god would put man on the earth, and only a retarded monkey would have man as a child.
Damned if you do, Damned if you don't

[mashman]

Essentially you're talking about the probability that God, Creation Entity or Science created the universe and everything to infinity.

You're going to end up with:

Oh shit I hope God wasn't watching me wank in the shower over my sisters husband this morning. I'll burn for that.
Oh shit I hope the Creation Entity wasn't watching me wank in the shower over my sisters husband this morning. I'll wonder if he invented Karma too. I'll burn for that.
Oh God in Creation what a feeling to have first thing in the shower of a morning.

Then that could make us the Intergalactic Province of the Solar System Region Fuck It's Big Out There, Planet 3, World Government... Blue Party currently sitting... and we've just gone through a management reshuffle... for 2 of them. Or a really bad mismanagement of the Planet by us.

Until there's evidence, i'd rather sort out the here and now.

[Edbear]

Yep only a foolish god would put man on the earth, and only a retarded monkey would have man as a child.
Damned if you do, Damned if you don't

And to give Man free will to decide for himself what is right and wrong and live as he pleases, well... :gob:

[Edbear]

Essentially you're talking about the probability that God, Creation Entity or Science created the universe and everything to infinity.

You're going to end up with:

Oh shit I hope God wasn't watching me wank in the shower over my sisters husband this morning. I'll burn for that.
Oh shit I hope the Creation Entity wasn't watching me wank in the shower over my sisters husband this morning. I'll wonder if he invented Karma too. I'll burn for that.
Oh God in Creation what a feeling to have first thing in the shower of a morning.

Then that could make us the Intergalactic Province of the Solar System Region Fuck It's Big Out There, Planet 3, World Government... Blue Party currently sitting... and we've just gone through a management reshuffle... for 2 of them. Or a really bad mismanagement of the Planet by us.

Until there's evidence, i'd rather sort out the here and now.

You've basically hit the nail on the head, here.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that human beings are totlaly incapable of sorting out the here and now. The world is not becoming a better place despite sincere and ongoing efforts by people who genuinely want peace and security and a better life for all. Listen to any Parliament or political, social or religious entity discussing the issues that face us. :blink:

If there is a creator, of course the question is raised as to why "He" did it and what's "He" been doing since and what's "He" going to do if anything?

The first thing to answer, though is, "Is the evidence in favour of direct creation?" If so and if science demonstrates the alternative of natural processes cannot work, we are forced to consider the probability of a creator and all that such implies.

Whatever, you think or prefer to believe, you won't find the answer in the religions of this world. For example, at risk of getting back on topic, who would ask a church for the truth when they knowingly and deliberately lie about every so-called Christian doctrine and demonstrate a callous disregard for the welfare of their adherents?

[Toaster]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10637869&ref=facebookheadlines

Well, if they hang him, they can call him "Pope on a Rope"

[Toaster]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10637869&ref=facebookheadlines


I was just thinking.... The Pope and Hugh Hefner have a lot in common... they both wear their pyjamas all day and have a cult following.

[Edbear]

I was just thinking.... The Pope and Hugh Hefner have a lot in common... they both wear their pyjamas all day and have a cult following.

But at least with old Hugh leacherous, you know he wants his love children to be legal age...

[Edbear]

Essentially you're talking about the probability that God, Creation Entity or Science created the universe and everything to infinity.

You're going to end up with:

Oh shit I hope God wasn't watching me wank in the shower over my sisters husband this morning. I'll burn for that.
Oh shit I hope the Creation Entity wasn't watching me wank in the shower over my sisters husband this morning. I'll wonder if he invented Karma too. I'll burn for that.
Oh God in Creation what a feeling to have first thing in the shower of a morning.

Then that could make us the Intergalactic Province of the Solar System Region Fuck It's Big Out There, Planet 3, World Government... Blue Party currently sitting... and we've just gone through a management reshuffle... for 2 of them. Or a really bad mismanagement of the Planet by us.

Until there's evidence, i'd rather sort out the here and now.

Oh, by the way... :innocent:

Heb, 4:13 "And there is not a creation that is not manifest to his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him with whom we have an accounting." :shutup:

[Dave Lobster]

Heb, 4:13 "And there is not a creation that is not manifest to his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him with whom we have an accounting." :shutup:

Who translated into english from Hebrew? Someone with a vested interest, or someone neutral?

[Edbear]

Who translated into english from Hebrew? Someone with a vested interest, or someone neutral?

That was from the Greek, NT. While there are many translators and publications available to check one of the most commonly used is the Interlinear by Westcott and Hort.

It's no biggie to find out whether something has been translated correctly, as the languages are still spoken today and any number of people who are native speakers can verify the accuracy. One of my sons-in-law is Israeli and a great source of information on middle-Eastern history and languages.

[dipshit]

Galileo would be chuffed.


Him and everyone else who was abused by the church!

I was thinking of the irony. Pope gets scientist arrested. Scientist gets Pope arrested.

How times have changed. :Punk: