Pope made to sit down and behave himself by the Queen

[AndyDT]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11313328

[El JoNNo]

What I would give to punch that man in the face as hard as I can.

[yorost]

Oh, this thread is going somewhere other than Ratzinger bashing.  Completely misleading title might as well be asking for it, but where's the useful point of making this thread?

[soundgarden]

If I was the pope I would be insulted that the lord would make me go around in this foolish glass enclosure rather than give me a shroud of invincibility.

[emindead]

What I would give to punch that man in the face as hard as I can.

If I say the same thing about you, but replace punch with a hard hit with a wrench I would be banned immediately. Think about it.

[bosk1]

Yes, but that's because El Jonno is a forum member and not a religious charlattan.  There's a very subtle difference between the two.

[ack44]

If I said that about Mike Portnoy would I be bant?

[El Barto]

What I would give to punch that man in the face as hard as I can.

If I say the same thing about you, but replace punch with a hard hit with a wrench I would be banned immediately. Think about it.

Send him an invite to join the forum.  That'd be fantastic.  He'd have the protection of the forum rules, plus, it'd be wonderful to see Bosk have to defend him despite all of his Catholic hatred. 

[rumborak]

I clicked on the page, and upon seeing the start image of the video, my first thought was "Wow, now there's two relics of the past! And they look as old as they are irrelevant."

rumborak

[bosk1]

What I would give to punch that man in the face as hard as I can.

If I say the same thing about you, but replace punch with a hard hit with a wrench I would be banned immediately. Think about it.

Send him an invite to join the forum.  That'd be fantastic.  He'd have the protection of the forum rules, plus, it'd be wonderful to see Bosk have to defend him despite all of his Catholic hatred. 

  Yeah, but he'd probably get pissed at me for calling him Benji and eventually get himself banned.

[yorost]

Yes, but that's because El Jonno is a forum member and not a religious charlattan.  There's a very subtle difference between the two.

I don't like Ratzinger, but calling him a charlatan is an insult to Catholicism more than it is to him.

[El Barto]

Yes, but that's because El Jonno is a forum member and not a religious charlattan.  There's a very subtle difference between the two.

I don't like Ratzinger, but calling him a charlatan is an insult to Catholicism more than it is to him.

I'm sure that was the intention.

[orcus116]

I clicked on the page, and upon seeing the start image of the video, my first thought was "Wow, now there's two relics of the past! And they look as old as they are irrelevant."

rumborak

Definitely agree but in fairness there are people that actually look up to the Pope. No one looks up to the Queen.

[XJDenton]

Yes, but that's because El Jonno is a forum member and not a religious charlattan.  There's a very subtle difference between the two.

Forum member is spelt correctly for a start.

[yorost]

Yes, but that's because El Jonno is a forum member and not a religious charlattan.  There's a very subtle difference between the two.

I don't like Ratzinger, but calling him a charlatan is an insult to Catholicism more than it is to him.

I'm sure that was the intention.

Perhaps, but it is what it is regardless of intention or not.  If bosk wasn't so aggressive against the Catholic faith I may not have given it attention.  However, bosk words things well and in the past has taken his opportunities to promote his hatred for Catholicism.

[Seventh Son]

The Pope also praised Britain's fight against Hitler's "atheist extremism", saying that "Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live".

So wait, why are atheists being compared to Hitler? Oh wait, this is the pope, I forgot.

[yorost]

All atheists were not compared to Hitler there.  Hitler was called an atheist extremist.  Should we judge all of Islam when someone criticizes the actions of Islamic extremists?  Heck, we shouldn't even judge all of extremist Islam based on the actions of one Islamic extremist, still too general.

Calling Hitler an atheist is just plain stupid as far as I know, no true evidence.  Very bad way to go in the speech, but I fail to see how it equates atheists to being like Hitler.

[El JoNNo]

Yes, but that's because El Jonno is a forum member and not a religious charlattan.  There's a very subtle difference between the two.

I don't like Ratzinger, but calling him a charlatan is an insult to Catholicism more than it is to him.

I'm sure that was the intention.

Perhaps, but it is what it is regardless of intention or not.  If bosk wasn't so aggressive against the Catholic faith I may not have given it attention.  However, bosk words things well and in the past has taken his opportunities to promote his hatred for Catholicism.

Who cares what Bosk calls him, it is his right to call him that. He is not being vulgar about it and has just reasons to do so. Feel free to defend the pope against the accusations of being a charlatan, IMO the shoe fits.  

The Pope also praised Britain's fight against Hitler's "atheist extremism", saying that "Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live".

So wait, why are atheists being compared to Hitler? Oh wait, this is the pope, I forgot.

Because that is often the strategy of the religious heads to make themselves look and feel better. If they equate atrocities to the godless they themselves feel higher and think they look higher than the acts of the godless. It is an appeal to emotion and it is a pack of lies.

[Seventh Son]

All atheists were not compared to Hitler there.  Hitler was called an atheist extremist.  Should we judge all of Islam when someone criticizes the actions of Islamic extremists?  Heck, we shouldn't even judge all of extremist Islam based on the actions of one Islamic extremist, still too general.

Calling Hitler an atheist is just plain stupid as far as I know, no true evidence.  Very bad way to go in the speech, but I fail to see how it equates atheists to being like Hitler.

It was the impression I got from the article, so I guess I jumped the gun a bit. But considering this is the pope, it really didn't surprise me. And I don't have anything to back it up, but I thought Hitler was a Christian?

[yorost]

Yes, but that's because El Jonno is a forum member and not a religious charlattan.  There's a very subtle difference between the two.

I don't like Ratzinger, but calling him a charlatan is an insult to Catholicism more than it is to him.

I'm sure that was the intention.

Perhaps, but it is what it is regardless of intention or not.  If bosk wasn't so aggressive against the Catholic faith I may not have given it attention.  However, bosk words things well and in the past has taken his opportunities to promote his hatred for Catholicism.

Who cares what Bosk calls him, it is his right to call him that. He is not being vulgar about it and has just reasons to do so. Feel free to defend the pope against the accusations of being a charlatan, IMO the shoe fits.  

Charlatan implies very negative connotations about the Catholic faith, essentially calling it a complete deception.

All atheists were not compared to Hitler there.  Hitler was called an atheist extremist.  Should we judge all of Islam when someone criticizes the actions of Islamic extremists?  Heck, we shouldn't even judge all of extremist Islam based on the actions of one Islamic extremist, still too general.

Calling Hitler an atheist is just plain stupid as far as I know, no true evidence.  Very bad way to go in the speech, but I fail to see how it equates atheists to being like Hitler.

It was the impression I got from the article, so I guess I jumped the gun a bit. But considering this is the pope, it really didn't surprise me. And I don't have anything to back it up, but I thought Hitler was a Christian?

Probably was, but too many people want otherwise so movements push for labeling him an atheist or agnostic.  Ratzinger is a joke to use that language.

[El JoNNo]

All atheists were not compared to Hitler there.  Hitler was called an atheist extremist.  Should we judge all of Islam when someone criticizes the actions of Islamic extremists?  Heck, we shouldn't even judge all of extremist Islam based on the actions of one Islamic extremist, still too general.

Calling Hitler an atheist is just plain stupid as far as I know, no true evidence.  Very bad way to go in the speech, but I fail to see how it equates atheists to being like Hitler.

It was the impression I got from the article, so I guess I jumped the gun a bit. But considering this is the pope, it really didn't surprise me. And I don't have anything to back it up, but I thought Hitler was a Christian?

Look up what "Gott mit uns" means, research it and draw your own conclusions.

Yes, but that's because El Jonno is a forum member and not a religious charlattan.  There's a very subtle difference between the two.

I don't like Ratzinger, but calling him a charlatan is an insult to Catholicism more than it is to him.

I'm sure that was the intention.

Perhaps, but it is what it is regardless of intention or not.  If bosk wasn't so aggressive against the Catholic faith I may not have given it attention.  However, bosk words things well and in the past has taken his opportunities to promote his hatred for Catholicism.

Who cares what Bosk calls him, it is his right to call him that. He is not being vulgar about it and has just reasons to do so. Feel free to defend the pope against the accusations of being a charlatan, IMO the shoe fits. 

Charlatan implies very negative connotations about the Catholic faith, essentially calling it a complete deception.

Yes, yes it does. The catholic faith as a whole may or may not a complete deception. When that vile man says aids is bad but not nearly as bad as condoms or willfully hides child rapists, he is a charlatan. Quite frankly those words carry too much of a light connotation to them.

[yorost]

Yes, yes it does. The catholic faith as a whole may or may not a complete deception. When that vile man says aids is bad but not nearly as bad as condoms or willfully hides child rapists, he is a charlatan. Quite frankly those words carry too much of a light connotation to them.

Just where did I criticize bosk for taking a shot at Ratzinger?  Where?!?  Where did I defend Ratzinger's character?  Where?!?  Your reply makes perfect sense if that's what I was doing!  Annoying.  What more do you want?  I recognized that it was perhaps not bosk's intentions, but explained why I responded based on his history.

You can insult and criticize Ratzinger very easily without throwing in a blanket attack on the Catholic faith.

[El Barto]

Yes, yes it does. The catholic faith as a whole may or may not a complete deception. When that vile man says aids is bad but not nearly as bad as condoms or willfully hides child rapists, he is a charlatan. Quite frankly those words carry too much of a light connotation to them.

Just where did I criticize bosk for taking a shot at Ratzinger?  Where?!?  Where did I defend Ratzinger's character?  Where?!?  Your reply makes perfect sense if that's what I was doing!  Annoying.  What more do you want?  I recognized that it was perhaps not bosk's intentions, but explained why I responded based on his history.

You can insult and criticize Ratzinger very easily without throwing in a blanket attack on the Catholic faith.

I agree.  I certainly have issues with Catholicism, just like any other religion, but I see no reason to be insulting about it. 

[El JoNNo]

Alright then maybe misunderstood the context of the conversation, apologize.

[emindead]

Yes, but that's because El Jonno is a forum member and not a religious charlattan.  There's a very subtle difference between the two.

If you want to create arbitrary rules to make the distinction, that's fine. It's your place after all. Allowing cheap shots to a representative of a deity, being the first poster to comment with a nothing-important-to-say just incites trouble; it also derails the thread, which is against the rules. Allowing to take cheap shots at something one personally doesn't agree that also goes against the rules is rather hypocritical, imo.

[Chino]

If I was the pope I would be insulted that the lord would make me go around in this foolish glass enclosure rather than give me a shroud of invincibility.

This has to be my facebook status.... thank you

[Chino]

Look up what "Gott mit uns" means, research it and draw your own conclusions.

I'm quoting My Dog Skip here....

"It means, God with us... in German"

[bosk1]

Look up what "Gott mit uns" means, research it and draw your own conclusions.

This?

[AndyDT]

I clicked on the page, and upon seeing the start image of the video, my first thought was "Wow, now there's two relics of the past! And they look as old as they are irrelevant."

rumborak

Definitely agree but in fairness there are people that actually look up to the Pope. No one looks up to the Queen.

Just millions of citizens around the Commonwealth.

[bosk1]

Yes, but that's because El Jonno is a forum member and not a religious charlattan.  There's a very subtle difference between the two.

If you want to create arbitrary rules to make the distinction, that's fine. It's your place after all. Allowing cheap shots to a representative of a deity, being the first poster to comment with a nothing-important-to-say just incites trouble; it also derails the thread, which is against the rules. Allowing to take cheap shots at something one personally doesn't agree that also goes against the rules is rather hypocritical, imo.

No, he is not the representative of a deity, and the fact that he considers himself to be makes him a charlatan by definition.  We've attempted to have this discussion in the past, and you've gotten upset and declined to continue.  You have the right to do that (see the other thread about ignoring the cliff), but just because you choose not to have that discussion doesn't mean it shouldn't be had.  And there has been no rule broken by me saying any of the above, including the rule about derailing threads (if you post was not off-topic, my post responding to yours certainly wasn't).

[AcidLameLTE]

"Row after Pope's remarks on atheism and Nazis"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515

[El Barto]

No, he is not the representative of a deity, and the fact that he considers himself to be makes him a charlatan by definition.

If I might make an observation:

Very shortly after I started posting here two years ago, I got a formal warning for [very facetiously] calling God a dick.  I replied that unless God was a registered member of the forum, I didn't see how I was breaking the rules.  Arrich replied that the post was offensive to the religious beliefs of others and he was right on that one point.  While you as a civilian poster participating in a P/R discussion have every right to think that his religion is full of shit, you as a moderator of the forum should recognize that his beliefs are his beliefs, regardless of whether or not you think they're valid, and he shouldn't have them ridiculed. 

Just my two cents.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I clicked on the page, and upon seeing the start image of the video, my first thought was "Wow, now there's two relics of the past! And they look as old as they are irrelevant."

rumborak

Definitely agree but in fairness there are people that actually look up to the Pope. No one looks up to the Queen.

AndyDT?

[El JoNNo]

I agree that one should not be subject to insults, but their beliefs most definitely should be subject to criticism. There is a big difference between personally insulting someone and telling them their beliefs are ridiculous. IMO the god of the Bible is a dick, same goes for the Qu'ran (I know they are the same) and most other religions (I say most because I do not know all of them). Should I be chastised for voicing my opinion no, as a discussion forum I should be allowed to voice it. However that being said I am not trying to promote a boundary-less avenue of discussion, as I said belief should be subject to criticism. If I were to just jump into every conversation and say "God is a dick" and jump out without any further discussion that is something that should not be tolerated as it IS inflammatory and it is only going to cause trouble.

If someone says I believe there is a Heaven and Hell and God resides over them, I should be able to say "Why would you say that ,that is ridiculous.". People are not free just to say things and not have any type of challenge, they are free to believe what they want. If someone wants to be free from criticism on the internet go to the appropriate religious forum. If we were to allow any type of protection from ridicule, where do we draw the line? Just religion? Or sports, TV shows, education, homeopathy, what hair color you like best? No, religion is just as much on the table as anything else.

The problem with bosk is that it may be construed with him "taking sides", as a mod I can see the shittyness of his situation.



@Bosk: I am not as well versed in Catholicism as you are so if you like just PM me whatever you would like to say about it. That way you can voice your opinion and not be in the crossfire of "fairness"          




Now I'm off to worship Tempus, Bahumut and Bane in a game of D&D.

[bosk1]

I agree with pretty much all of that, notwithstanding that I think I must somehow be insane to admit I am agreeing with El Jonno on religious issues.  I mean, yes, a good measure of tact is necessary to avoid the appearance of just flaming/trolling.  But as EJ pointed out, I am not attacking emin.  I believe the current Pope, as well as every Pope before him, is a fraud.  I've said why in the past, so I don't see the need to go into it in detail when I'm just making a passing comment.  Honestly, I would consider plenty that is said on this board about Christianity to be downright dispicable and offensive.  But I let a lot of it go because, as long as it is within reason and isn't an attack on a user directly, it generates discussion.  And if religious beliefs are up for discussion, the believer should come prepared to defend his or her beliefs.  Again, yes, people need to tone down the rhetoric and not say inflammatory things for the sake of being inflammatory.  I agree with that.  And as a mod/admin of this forum, I have apologized in the past to emin and others when I have crossed the line.  But I honestly don't see this as a big deal.  It was a comment made in passing that, while I believe is true, was meant more or less to be funny and to address a completely different point that was being made at the time.  And more than that, I am prepared to discuss it in great detail and have an in-depth, give-and-take discussion on the subject.  That's the difference.  If someone wants to say Jesus is a fraud, what should I do about that?  Do I think it's offensive?  Yeah, I do.  Am I going to ban someone over it?  Most likely no, unless they have no interest in discussing it whatsoever, and it is clear their motive is just to offend people who believe otherwise (or have a complete disregard for whether they offend).  But if they are inclined to discuss the subject, that's exactly what this place is for.