If you accept the Bible as it stands as the only word of God, and the Concept of the Trinity, that means you accept the decisions of the RCC up to the council of Trent in the 1500s… I’d have to know which Protestant sect you are to be able to point up Post-Trent Councils you accepts as an article of faith.

But to say the RCC make it up as they go along it to level an accusation that can be applied to every Christian sect I’ve encountered, and probably every sect after ~AD36, and there’s no guarantee that the son of man was doing anything more than winging it while reforming Mosaic law…

You assert:

Pope Benedict … has decided that science is too arrogant

I generally don’t talk too much about religion, unless I’m handing creationists their head as they so richly deserve

I don’t know your writing well enough to tell – were you trying to be humorous, or was this unintentionally “dumb and ironic”?

I also believe that “Religion” is an outdated concept. I feel it should be placed on a restricted list. Not censored or prohibited, but its adherents should be truthfully advised to think for themselves. Abject following of another’s direction has led to too many of this world’s wars. Mutual tolerance, and also consideration for another’s reasons for being different, should be the norm.

Let’s get on with living and learning.

Ivan.

As a practicing Catholic and a practicing amateur astronomer I wonder what, if anything, did any Catholic do to you?

Really buddy, you should leave your Anti-Catholic ranting at home or at least before you get onto the computer.

Now, as to Infallibility, I will say that I couldn’t expect such an Anti-Catholic to understand but I will try again.

The Pope is ONLY infallible in MATTERS OF FAITH ALONE!

That’s it…that’s all she wrote!

I gave you a second chance but Phil you have failed me again.

I wish you the very best and I will keep you in my prayers.

Sincerely but sadly,

P. Edward Murray
Bucks-Mont. Astronomical Assoc., Inc.

I’m more worried by this Pope’s rantings about Islam & calling for another crusade ..er ..revival .. But it seems all part of a pattern of intolerance. The old “One True Faith” li(n)e coming out again – Ratzinger wants people to reject Science, reject “secularism” (whatever that means) & return to a worldview that reveres the ideas & quotes as modern fact the opinions of medievial bigots and bloodthirsty inquistors & crusaders.

Catholicism strikes me as one of the worst variants of Christianity – itshistory of persecuting scientists, indigenous people, supporting slavery, creating powerful hierachies thathave frequently abused their positions and their parishoners … ad nauseam.

I don’t view Christ as a mythological figure like say Daedaleus & Icarus. He was a historical figure with a real history that is hard to verify; one of many “false Messiahs” being sought for by the Jews of Palestine in Roman times. He was quite probably born of a illicit affair between Mary & a temple guard. Jesus was certainly a charismatic rabbi-philosopher and a rebel and dissenter against established Jewish orthodoxy which he rightly criticised as hypocritical and clashed with often. (The money-lenders, pharisees, Caiphas view of him as a reliogio-polical rival, etc ..) He was seen by the Jewish and Roman authorities as a trouble-maker and executed by crucifiction for that.

What is mythological or at least unverifiable is the stories about Jesus’ miracles and supposed return from death. The Bible was – & clearly is – propganda designed and spun by the later apostles and followers particlularly Peter and Paul to suit their own purposes and interpretations of what he said. Exactly what went on afterwards and whether anything can ever be known about it other than through personal belief experiences is doubtful. That aspect is myth – but myth based around a kernal of historical reality.

The whole notion of an 80-year old virgin male with the sexual perversion of celibacy*, who has deliberately limited real-life experience, and absence of scientific knowledge and a prediliction for fanaticism being “infallible” about _anything_ would be laughable; were it not for the fact that too many people take it seriously.

——-
* Footnote : At least the perversion of celibacy -an abnormal sexual practice. Given the number of paedophiles and sexually atypical people who have been closeted & protected by Catholic authorities other perversions maywell be suspected if as yet unverifiable.
—————-

The last Pope, Karol Wotjtyla / John-Paul II, was quite intolerant and right-wing, he left a nasty legacy of overpopulation, misery and increased AIDS and human suffering. He also made the Vatican “a saint factory” and glorified the founder of Opus Dei and a former Pope who did little if anything to oppose the Fascists during the Jewish Holocaust. He also took undue credit for bringing down the Soviet Regime – ceredit better awarded to Mikhail Gorbatchov without whoem we’d almost certainly still have a Communist Russia.

The current Pope, Benedict / Ratzinger is an arch-conservative, fantical former Hitler Youth member who has already killed many people and incited religious violence with intolerant, ignorant and hypocritical remarks about Islam. He has, as far as I’m aware, never studied or followed science, supports creationism and is keen to stick to his predecessors cruel and ineffective policies.

If you think I dislike catholicism generally you are right. If you think I’ve got good reasons for thinking that and make a valid case against that whole anachronistic, illogical and, frankly, stupid overgrown cult then you are even more correct.
——————————–

Sorry if this breeches netiquette with the .. sorta .. double posting but I really wanted to express my views in a clear and understandable, typo-free fashion. Please BA – let us have editing capability!

Catholicism strike sme as on eofttheworst fvariants of Christianity – itshistory of persecuting scientists, indigenous people, supporting slavery, creating powerful hierachies thathave frequently abused their positions and their parishoners … ad nauseam.

I don’t view Christ as a mythological figure like say Daedaleus & Icarus. He was a historical figure with a real history that is hard to verify; one of many “false Messiahs” being sought for by the Jews of Plaestine in Roman times. He was probably born of a illict affair with Mary & a temple guard, certainly charismatic and rebellious against established Jewish orhodoxy which he rightly criticised as hypocritical (the money-lenders, pharisees, etc ..) was seen by theJewish and Roman authorities as a trouble-maker and executed by crucifiction for that.

What is mythological or at least unverifiable is the stories about his miracles and return from death. The Bible was – & clearly is – propganda designed and spun by the later apostles and followers particlularly Peter and Paul to suit their own purposes and interpretations of what he said. The whole notion of an 80-year old virgin male with the sexual perversion of celibacy, who has deliberately limited real-life experience, and absence of scientific knoweldge and a predilction for fanaticism being “infalluible” about anything would be laughable were it not for theact that toomany people take it seriously.

The last Pope was quite intolerant and right-wing, he left alegacy of overpopulation, misery and increased AIDS and human suffering. Healso made the Vatican “a saint factory” and glorified thefounder of Opus Dei and aformer Pope who did little if anything to oppose the Fascists during the Jewsih Holocaust.

The current Pope is an arch-conservative, fantical former Hitler Youth member who has already killed many people and incited religious violence with intolerant, ignorant and hypocritical remarks about Islam. He has, as far as I’m aware, never studied or followed science, supports creationism and is keen to stick to his predecessors cruel and ineffective policies.

If you think I dislike catholicism and the Popes generally you are right. If you think I’ve got good reasons for thinking that and make a valid case against that whole anachronistic, illogical and, frankly, stupid overgrown cultthen your even more correct.

Second: Scientists are usually much more concerned about the misapplication of their work than are the people who pay for that research. All knowledge is apolitical. How we use it determines the Good.

I am an agnostic mystic, as were Bhuddah,Christ, Mohammed and thousands of others throughout history. Many tried to share their insights. The misunderstanding of their words lead to the formation of religion. Everything goes downhill from there. Again, organized religion is the classic example of the misapplication of knowledge.

If I were God, I would NEVER forgive the Catholic church the Inquisition and murder of millions of native Americans, Africans, etc. in J.C.s name. The leaders of that church would spend quite a few million years in hell for THEIR arrogance.

Scientists base their lives on the knowledge that what is learned of the natural world is always incomplete, so there must always be an inherent humility. If we are at all arrogant, it is in the belief we are CAPABLE of knowing the truth. I like that,,,

Gary 7

Confuddled:
I’m just trying to help…
sorry for not respecting the general subject of the discussion. ”

No, I ment that you totaly owned the BA

Confuddled Says:
Mr Bad Astronomer,
as a French speaking person, I must tell you this:
would you believe you made two mistakes in a simple three letter word? First, “neé” is spelled “née”. Then the pope is a guy, so it would be “né”. ”

We Americans don’t always stick to perfect French! . Merriam-Webster’s says it’s OK to use nee for everyone:

2: originally or formerly called or named — used to identify (1) a girl or woman usually after mention of an assumed or acquired name ; (2) sometimes a man or boy usually after mention of another name being used ; and (3) sometimes similarly a group ,

JC: (Incidentally, could someone tell me what the quotation syntax is? With no preview, I’m reluctant to experiment.)

Its the word: “blockquote” then “/blockquote” where the quotation marks are the > Some people call them arrows, I call them divets.

Mr Bad Astronomer,
as a French speaking person, I must tell you this:
would you believe you made two mistakes in a simple three letter word? First, “neé” is spelled “née”. Then the pope is a guy, so it would be “né”. ”

PWNT

Interesting question. Can we really separate the message from the person giving it? In this case, can we understand what the message is intended to be, without understanding who is saying it? How do we interpret the meaning of such a short comment?

When trying to understand someone’s intent, is it unfair to take the bulk of their comments and previously stated positions as context for the current remarks? Or is every statement to stand in pure isolation?

I think what we’re arguing over here is very much the context of the remarks and interpretations of the intent of Pope Benedict. I suppose only Pope Benedict can truly tell us his intent. The rest of us have to guess from the context of the remarks and previous statements by him.

Given:
1. The commentor was Pope Benedict, a religious figure (Head of Church), not a secular title of authority (King, President, Dictator-for-Life, Chairman of the Board, etc).
2. He was speaking as the religious leader (if not in “infallible” mode).
3. He was speaking to academics and students at the Pontifical Lateranense University (a Catholic university) in Rome.
4. He has previously advocated Intelligent Design (at some opposition to Pope John Paul II).
5. He is opposed to stem cell research, regardless of the potential outcome or the source of the stem cells.

Now interpret the following remarks:
A. “Contemporary life gives pride of place to an artificial intelligence ever more enslaved to experimental techniques, thereby forgetting that all science should safeguard mankind and promote his tendency to authentic goodness.”

B. “Letting yourself be seduced by discovery without paying attention to the criteria of a deeper vision could lead to the drama the myth speaks of.”

These are the two excerpted quotes we are presented in this article. The article attempts to contextualize them with comments similar to what I said above. Given the context of who he is, is positions of record, and his job description (Pope), how is one to interpret his remarks?

Option 1: Scientists should be concerned when researching and developing technology about the ethical and social considerations of their research.

Option 2: You students who may one day become scientists should constrain your science to fit God’s will. Don’t violate church doctrine.

Or did I just set you up with a false dichotomy, and the answer is an Option 3 that is somewhat in the middle of the two?

I can see why some of you can take the remarks on their own merit, given just the little bit given, and take them in a general way. Perhaps that is all he intended. But I can see why Phil and others take them in the context of who he is and his previously stated opinions, and thus take them as strongly negative. YMMV.

What I find funny is the Pope calling upon Greek myth rather than his own particular Roman lore – er, scripture. What, did Jesus not have a parable for that?

Yes there are scientists who are risk takers and rush into new discoveries buoyed by the thrill of discovery. There are also those who cautiously explore the terrain mindful that there may be pitfalls and dangers. And I suppose there are those who stay in safe mode working on problems that have been solved trying to tease one more insight out of them…

And yes, I am a Catholic.
I don’t care for this Pope — he often says foolish things — remember his comments about Islamic evangeilism by the sword — (and did he forget the Crusades.)
And I was taught by Jesuits – taught to think – to weigh and question, to examine and explore…… to learn about the world thru science and to learn about other things thru philosophy and faith and most of all to keep reflecting on what I “know”.

No kidding. Nevertheless, the BA was perpetuating a common and incorrect view of Catholic doctrine. There are those of us who are nonreligious, yet still want to keep everyone’s facts straight, whichever side one may stand on.

(Incidentally, could someone tell me what the quotation syntax is? With no preview, I’m reluctant to experiment.)

Icarus’ story is just a tale, a myth if you will, not religion!

What’s the difference between myth and religion?

Ans. A religion is a myth that YOU believe in.

Anyone who isn’t christian views the story of christ as a myth.

The pope never liked men using balloons in any form….

Still, one beauty of myth is its ability to withstand re-interpretation. There are many morals you can glean from a myth, and Icarus is no exception. I could push the analogy farther, saying that Icarus had no time to test the wings so it wasn’t really a failure of engineering tests. But he did use the wings in a manner not recommended by the manufacturer, which can result in catastrophic failure (and abrogate his right to sue).