QUOTE (SAJse @ Apr 03 2005, 19.33)

No confusion.

People got stoned. An undignified way to die. it was sanctioned by God.

True. There is evidence to support that certain stonings were sanctioned by God. So far this part of your argument is most solid.

Allow me to ask then, is it locially necessary that to sanction a stoning is tantamount to dispespect of the dying?

I'll cite an example where it might not be, if it helps. For example, God says, "Look, there are rules, and there are consequences. Those who break rules must suffer the consequences. The consequence for breaking rule X is stoning."

No disrespect. No cruelty. He may even feel bad that those who chose to break the rules have to die, as He takes no pleasure in the death of His creation.

QUOTE (SAJse @ Apr 03 2005, 19.33)

Wether we regard him as a person is in the eye of the beholder. I regard him as a person because he is the ultimate sentient being and there is no point arguing this because it's all about perception.

Exactly. No argument there. So the answer to your statement: "Then in your eyes God must be scum," is that since Bowspearer believes that God is beyond his judgement, God can not be considered scum no matter what God has done or will do. There. Easy peasy.

QUOTE (SAJse @ Apr 03 2005, 19.33)

Dude, you live in a great country (and I mean that in all sincerity) but you seem to have no understanding of the suffering that goes on in the world. People in Zimbabwe eat trees for crying out loud. TREES (and don't get me started on cannabilism stories from North Korea). Homeless people in OUR countries are like kings in comparison.

Don't confuse your relative comfort with people from different countries.

First, thanks. Yeah, Canada is pretty cool.

Second: no confusion.

I know there is suffering. In fact, I know there is a great amount of suffering. Perhaps we're talking semantics again. Or perhaps degrees of suffering. But look, stick me in a tribe in the middle of Zimbabwe and for every one person I find that is suffering terribly, I'll find several people who are happy. They'll say, "Yes. There is suffering, but there is also living. I cry twice a day for my dead sons, but I'll smile for the rest of the day for the ones that still live."

That's my point. We all see/face/deal with tragedy every now and then, but for the most part there is peace in our lives -- because if we did not find peace, happiness or joy -- if there was no purpose in life but to keep suffering, we would lay down and die. And yes, there are a few (think of 6 billion living people -- even 100 million would be a "few") who do all but lay down, the other 5 billion, 900 million people are finding enough peace and joy to continue living. To me that's not a bad world; that's a good one.

QUOTE (SAJse @ Apr 03 2005, 19.33)

Oh and I'm not suffering incase you thought I was playing the martyr. We may have got our wires crossed there.

Cool. No problem.

QUOTE (Angelophile @ Apr 03 2005, 04.38)

I don't want to sound trite, but millions of people turned out to see the Pope because they were catholics or simply wanted to be part of an "event", it has absolutely nothing to do with him personally.

Don't worry, you don't sound trite. You sound like an asswipe who doesn't have the first clue of what he's talking about. The late Pope inspired millions, won over crowds large and small, sympathetic and occasionally hostile with his charisma and energy. He did more with the office to reach out to all corners of the world than any several Popes combined in recent memory. He was adored and respected not only because of his position, but because of who he was personally. To minimize his impact and his works by declaring it simply the result of his position is not only ignorant, its downright insulting.

People respect the office of the Presidency, the Prime Minister, or King. But that does not mean they respect the individual currently holding it. For Pope John Paul II there was immense personal respect, above and beyond the office, even from those who had little respect for the position or the faith.

And noone is asking you to change your views or become a hypocrit. But many in this thread (perhaps yourself included) have conducted themselves in an extremely disrespectful and insulting manner. For whatever reason, people have seen this as an opportunity to callously shit on the faith. I was under the delusion that for a moment, that people could put their often misguided distaste for religion in general aside to honor a great man. It'll be a long time before we see another like him.

And Sajse, that post is sickening. I don't care how many qualifiers and excuses you put up there, you're still putting Mugabe's and Hitler's name up next to the Pope's. You know exactly what kind of reaction thats gonna get. And by placing them there, you are making a tacit comparison whether you say so or not.

And its disgusting that you would compare the Pope to utter butchers.

QUOTE (SAJse @ Apr 03 2005, 05.36)

Yeah, I believe Hitler was quite popular too. Point? Thanks for joining us in this retarded discussion.

Oh an please refer to Angelophile's post for a more intelligently thought out reply to this last point.

If Angelo's post is the more intelligent one, you're both in need of help. And if the discussion is retarded, I don't think you'd have to walk too far to find the reason. I'm not even saying this isn't the time for criticism or evaluation of the man's life. But the critique here is not thoughtful, not intelligent, barely researched, and drenched in baseless hostility. You've taken your apparent disdain for religion in general and used it to bludgeon a man.

As for the point, I'll turn that around, whats your point? Hundreds of thousands also came out to see Ghandi speak. Mother Teresa inspired crowds whereever she went. MLK brought out hundreds of thousands. So did Mandela. And so did many other truly great, global leaders. Are you gonna minimize their legacy too simply because Hitler could get a crowd as well? Are they or their works any less because evil men were also able to do that single thing that you cherry picked out of a dozen other points in my thread?

Hitler pushed for war, John Paul fought for peace. Hitler tried to anniliate the Jews, John Paul overturned 2000 years of church doctrine and said the Jews were God's people as well and that their direction to heaven was equally as valid as the Catholics, and that they were not responsible for Jesus's death. Hitler exploited whoever he could, while John Paul condemned exploitation whether it came from Communists or capitalists. The men were nothing alike. Their values, beliefs, tactics, and teachings were polar opposites. So I ask you, what the hell was your point? A retraction and an apology would be nice.

And people have conducted themselves in a calm and controlled manner, sure. Its easy to be calm and controlled when you're the one taking a shit on other people. Are you seriously surprised at some of the reactions you guys have gotten? You think we should sit back and chuckle when less than a day after his death, little fuckers are making pedofile jokes? I can't quite grasp how blind and entirely stupid some of the people in this thread are.

And another is concerned that we're 'overmourning' the Pope. Because there are better people or better Christians out there. And I'm sure there are, and I'm sure they deserve to be recognized and mourned just as much as the Pope does. But so what? Does that mean that this Pope, for the life he's lead, for the great changes he's made, for the bold goals he's achieved, is undeserving of the mourning and respect he's getting? Undeserving of the publicity? Just because a few may be more deserving, does not mean that this man is entitled to any less.

There were better artists than Picaso, does that mean we give his works no attention? Better musicians than Lennon, does that mean we should have been indifferent at his shooting? And perhaps there were definately better Presidents than Kennedy, does that mean the nation should not have mourned quite as much? Your argument is meritless, circular, and devoid of reason. I can only conclude that it stems from your already ingrained distate for Catholicism or religion in general. Your bias formed your conclusion without anything to support it.

We lost a great man, and you make pedofile jokes. We lost a true humanitarian, and you compare him to Hitler. We lost a man who inspired millions above and beyond the simple status of his position, and you behave like a bunch of fucking ingrates chuckling as you make callous and insulting remarks, then are suddenly bewildered when people take offense.

I'm gonna love seeing the reactions when Mandela died. If they had the internet back than, wonder if there'd be similar shitheels when Ghandi died. Did your parents have a chuckle when Martin Luther King was shot? How about Malcom X? Was there a family party making Catholic jokes when Kennedy got his head blown off? You people have no perspective.

Once more, I'm not saying no criticism. I'm not saying said criticism can't be harsh. But in light of the great works this man has achieved, the greater he tried to achieve, the life he's lead, and the inspiration he's been to billions, not simply because he was the Pope, but because of who he was as a person...in light of all that, I request that said criticism be intelligent, thoughtful, well researched, and respectful.

You want a diatribe on the hypocricies and flaws of religion, Christianity, or Catholicism, I can write you a book. But that still does not change what this man was to so many and what he'll continue to be. If you want to criticize, know your shit and don't be a jackass about it.

"Oh boy, here we go. Where did you get that info?

NO ONE knows who wrote the ORIGINAL Bible, only that it was re-written by King James. (Sounds like the Transformers script, eh?) King James basically re-wrote it to set in stone "law". These laws was to stop civil unrest amongst his people. If you steal, you go to hell. If you kill someone, you go to hell....See where I'm going with this?

For all we all know, the original Bible could have been written by a bunch of college-aged stoners. Or thieves...or Psychotics...and somebody walks by, reads the book and decides this must be the way we MUST live? We must spend our entire lives praying to Jesus Christ...even though we STILL have no proof he ever existed?

You don't know for sure.

What God DID indeed write...was the 10 commandments. But even those haven't been found...have they?

I was raised Catholic...it just didn't stick. But I do know Catholicism. Too much stuff just seemed....off. That's why I don't believe in the Bible...but I DO believe in a God. Obviously! How could there be any other answer on why we're here?

The Bible was basically the greatest story ever told (supposedly, but I also liked "The Hunt For Red October"). Too many inconsistencies, too many bible pushing psychos out there, and WAYYYY too much corruption in the Church led me away from Catholicism.

I figure I can still believe in God...but I do not agree with the Catholic way...anymore."

OKAY: First, if people took me literally when i said "God wrote the bible"... I'M SORRY!

The bible itself speaks of God's inspiration and words coming to those that WROTE IT DOWN. BUT it is God's word to us.

And man.... no proof of Jesus actual life.... i mean.... what you been reading??? ....... there is more proof of Jesus life than Julius Ceasar's, and many other well known historical figures.
Even historians who didn't agree with him wrote about him, Josephus the Jewish historian is one example.
And about the reliability of the bible. Well one point. Much of the bible was written by the people who were there. Especially the new testament, with the actual Messiah coming to earth and having thousands of witnesses to his life, and then hundreds of witnesses to his life after death!!!!!!

anyhow. I agree that yes, take a step back, and there is some good discussion here.

and SAJse, i wasn't directin anything at you, just commenting in general.

Mandela is a former terriorist whos presidency drove his country into near anarchy.

There, I'll say that NOW because I wouldn't want to be seen as "disrespectful" when he's dead or dying.

I won't change my views of him as a person because of his death. I didn't change my views of the pope or the position of the pope because of his death.

Enlightenment, no-one has made pedophile jokes since the pope's death that I can see. You're confusing the before and after the event. And the only person who made those jokes anyway is L. Ninio, please don't lump the rest of us in with him.

I'm sorry for the way you feel, Enlightenment, but calling me a shit and other names doesn't make what I said any less true from where I'm standing. You may believe that thousands of people wuld have turned out to see the John Paul II wherever he went if he'd never become the pope, but I don't believe that to be the case. I don't think the many millions of catholics across the world would be mourning the MAN had he not become the OFFICE.

You disagree and that's your perogative, but I'm certain my views aren't ill informed, but rather, they simply disagree with yours.

QUOTE (Angelophile @ Apr 04 2005, 01.32)

Mandela is a former terriorist whos presidency drove his country into near anarchy.

Really? Are you sure he wasn't a Freedom-Fighter, a Liberator, or a Patriot, or something plesant? I mean he did fight for the rights of South Africans against the evil Apartheid. Did he not? I suppose that would only make him a "terrorist" if you happened to supposrt Apartheid... otherwise he should have one of those other niftier lables, hmm?

And was his Presidency difficult because he was a "terroist"? Are you making a casual link there? Or were there other reasons that the country fell into near anarchy? Could it even be said that were it not for Mandela's leadership the country would have surely fallen into anarchy? So that he first saved a people from oppression and then saved a country from anarchy?

You're right! He's a hero twice over! Thanks for clearing that up before he also passed away.

QUOTE (Angelophile @ Apr 04 2005, 01.32)

Mandela is a former terriorist whos presidency drove his country into near anarchy.

He was called that by many at one time. History and the rest of the world disagrees with you.

QUOTE (Angelophile @ Apr 04 2005, 01.32)

I won't change my views of him as a person because of his death. I didn't change my views of the pope or the position of the pope because of his death.

I don't expect you to. Nor do I expect criticism to be unforthcoming. But I do expect it to be intelligent and respectful. We haven't gotten alot of that here.

QUOTE (Angelophile @ Apr 04 2005, 01.32)

I'm sorry for the way you feel, Enlightenment, but calling me a shit and other names doesn't make what I said any less true from where I'm standing. You may believe that thousands of people wuld have turned out to see the John Paul II wherever he went if he'd never become the pope, but I don't believe that to be the case. I don't think the many millions of catholics across the world would be mourning the MAN had he not become the OFFICE.

Thats great that you think noone would come to see him if he was never Pope, I might even agree, except thats not what I said. Hardly even a close representation. I said that he took the status and prestige of the office and elevated it with his energy and charisma, to the point that people were as much coming to see him personally as they were the Pope. Sure the Pope gets crowds no matter what, but because of the man himself, those crowds were larger, more energetic, and devoted. A President gets crowds every time he speaks, but a great President gets crowds that puts those for other Presidents to shame. And thats what this man did. It was as much the office as the man himself and I'm curious why you think otherwise? Why do you think it was nothing but the hat and robe? And that any other man in the same garb would get the same respect, adoration, and crowds?

The office is important, but put a lesser man in there and do you think there'd be the same level of respect from supporters, critics, and opponents alike? The level of influence, the moral authority throughout dozens of nations throughout the world? Personal access and a word that will be listened to by the majority of global leaders? You make it appear as if the position is interchangeable and one Pope is just as good as another. I'm not buying that.

I'm gonna try to give you the benefit of the doubt that you have good reason to believe this. Because it does seem like you're trying to diminish the man for no apparent reason.

QUOTE (EnlightenmentHK @ Apr 04 2005, 02.17)

I'm gonna try to give you the benefit of the doubt that you have good reason to believe this. Because it does seem like you're trying to diminish the man for no apparent reason.

Not at all, I've said plenty of times he was a good man and as a pope, probably one of the better ones.

I haven't said anything against him as a man, nor do I intend to.

As regards Mandela, he's not Ghandi, he used violent methods in his "fight for freedom". Now, whether that makes him a terrorist, freedom fighter or what depends on your views, the same way that the IRA are considered to be freedom fighters by some and terrorists by others, or Palestinians, Al Queda or whoever it is you're talking about. Whether they're right or wrong depends on your viewpoint, but they're all people who have used violence to get their point across. Blowing up buildings is not peaceful protest.

Either way, regardless of whether people consider him a living saint or not, I have my views of him which I'll stand by and I'll not be hypocritical enough to change them if or when he dies.

I think it's actually pretty insulting for the Pope to be compared to Madella really. Not as bad as comparing him to Hitler certainly, but you never caught the Pope blowing up buildings in his native land during the communist era.

QUOTE (Bluestreak 26 @ Apr 03 2005, 21.52)

Allow me to ask then, is it locially necessary that to sanction a stoning is tantamount to dispespect of the dying?

.....

No disrespect. No cruelty. He may even feel bad that those who chose to break the rules have to die, as He takes no pleasure in the death of His creation.

Well yeah. Throwing bricks at someone as they die is pretty disrespectful. A non painful death and criticism from some guy on a message board would be my alternate choice.

I don't think God took any pleasure from it but he allowed it.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the amount of suffering in the world. I agree that humans are resiliant but we have our limits and even though your estimate of 100 million is a shockingly low number I still think that's too much.

QUOTE (EnlightenmentHK @ Apr 03 2005, 22.42)

And Sajse, that post is sickening. I don't care how many qualifiers and excuses you put up there, you're still putting Mugabe's and Hitler's name up next to the Pope's. You know exactly what kind of reaction thats gonna get. And by placing them there, you are making a tacit comparison whether you say so or not.

Because you say so? Thanks for putting words in my mouth then slagging me for it. You don't know what I meant beyond what I posted here so don't invent things just to have a go.

The rest of your post makes no sense because you still believe I compare Hitler to John Paul.

QUOTE (EnlightenmentHK @ Apr 04 2005, 02.17)

He was called that by many at one time. History and the rest of the world disagrees with you.

Nope. No matter what the cause you have to call certain actions for what they are.

QUOTE (Angelophile @ Apr 04 2005, 05.14)

I think it's actually pretty insulting for the Pope to be compared to Madella really. Not as bad as comparing him to Hitler certainly, but you never caught the Pope blowing up buildings in his native land during the communist era.

The Mandela comparison was that in they're both prominent, widely beloved and well respected iconic global figures. That there is a more or less global consensus that they are or were great men. Ghandi or MLK-like figures in the global consciousness, even if reality doesn't quite agree. The fact is, almost noone calls Mandela terrorist today. Perhaps most simply don't remember him as anything but that guy who was in prison for 27 years and helped bring down apartheid. But it can be said that what he fought against, no matter the tactics, was evil. And non-violent civil disobedience, Ghandi style, only works where the oppressor has a conscience. South Africa was a nation that kept an institutional abomination like apartheid alive during the modern era, conscience was likely not very forthcoming.

Whatever the realities of Mandela's situation, there is no disputing that his legacy is one of public, global adoration and recognition as a great man of his generation. In that, they are alike. And that was the point of the comparison.

QUOTE (Angelophile @ 04 2005, 05.14)

I haven't said anything against him as a man, nor do I intend to.

You suggest that he personally had nothing to do with the energetic crowds of millions that would greet him whereever he went, or the respect and deference from world leaders, other nations and religions, supporters and opponents alike. That it was all a result of the big hat. And you offer nothing I've seen to support that assertion. In my opinion, that IS saying something against the man.

QUOTE (SAJse @ Apr 04 2005, 06.10)

Because you say so? Thanks for putting words in my mouth then slagging me for it. You don't know what I meant beyond what I posted here so don't invent things just to have a go.

That was the point of that part of my post, when you put those names together it doesn't matter what you meant. When Hitler or some other butcher comes out as a point of reference with the other guy, all reason goes out the window. And when you essentially said, 'Hey, Hitler can get big crowds too', how exactly is that not a comparison?

And when you say 'I'm not trying to compare them' when you mention Mugabe, it comes off as disingenuous to say the least. Its like saying 'I'm not racist, but all the blacks/jews/hispanics ever do is commit crimes and destroy our neighborhoods. When a person says that, they can claim the opposite all they like, the evidence is in their own words, they are indeed racist.

When Ward Churchill called 9-11 victims little Eichmans, did anyone care at that point in what context the statement was used? Once you mention true victims or heros in the same sentence as butchers and villains, don't be shocked at the reaction. Any reasonable person would know what the reaction would be. And if you are a reasonable person, than you knew that it was a stupid statement to make whether you were trying to compare them or not. Because thats exactly how such a statement would be taken.

So lets sum up, you know its stupid. You know it would come off as a comparison. One that would piss off more than a few people. You make it anyway. You can call it a non-comparison all you like, but thats essentially what it was.

QUOTE (SAJse @ Apr 04 2005, 06.10)

The rest of your post makes no sense because you still believe I compare Hitler to John Paul.

A convenient copout to avoid the rest of the post.

(Just want to say that I do enjoy discussing transformers or any other subject with you Sajse. I'm not one to make personal grudges or bare any ill-will for anyone from one thread to the next. Nothing you say here will change my favorable opinion of you or any of the other posters on this board, and I hope its mutual. That said, I'm still gonna tear you a new asshole on this. )

QUOTE (EnlightenmentHK @ Apr 04 2005, 06.43)

And when you say 'I'm not trying to compare them' when you mention Mugabe, it comes off as disingenuous to say the least. Its like saying 'I'm not racist, but all the blacks/jews/hispanics ever do is commit crimes and destroy our neighborhoods. When a person says that, they can claim the opposite all they like, the evidence is in their own words, they are indeed racist.

When Ward Churchill called 9-11 victims little Eichmans, did anyone care at that point in what context the statement was used? Once you mention true victims or heros in the same sentence as butchers and villains, don't be shocked at the reaction. Any reasonable person would know what the reaction would be.

WTF?

That argument makes NO sense at all.

SAJse didn't say the Pope was like Hitler, so the "little Eichmans" comparrison is completely and entirely unjustified as well as being sensationalist crap to try and make it seem like SAJse is some kind of bad guy.

That's beneath you.

Not as beneath you as the racist comparrison, however, because that doesn't have the SLIGHTEST connection to what SAJse said and seems to be plucked from nowhere.

I realise this is an emotive subject Enlightenment, but such warping of others statements is just bizarro.

Try and address the things people have said, not something you've plucked from nowhere to acuse them of.

QUOTE (EnlightenmentHK @ Apr 04 2005, 06.43)

And when you essentially said, 'Hey, Hitler can get big crowds too', how exactly is that not a comparison?

I was basically saying that drawing a large crowd does not make someone a "good guy". This is the internet and when you've been called a scumbag 400 times the Hitler comments get called on.

The Pope was not compared to Hitler form my perspective* and if people deduce that from my post it's their problem. I would rather they admit that drawing a large crowd does not a good man make.

*except both their instituations were steeped in paganism.

Oh and I agree with your last paragraph. Heated discussion is fun in its place but grudges suck ass.

Agreed, but honestly, I'm not sure screaming and calling people shits and scumbags is particularly honoring the man's memory anyway.

Perhaps people's attitudes in the opening stages of this thread were a little insensitive, but the vehement reaction of one person in particular in reply was just unecessary.

Your points apply to that too - If you don't like the discussion, don't read the thread. If people's views offend you, don't read them. Tolerance is applicable to both sides in this debate, not just one.

Same here, but especially...

QUOTE (Angelophile @ Apr 04 2005, 09.15)

Agreed, but honestly, I'm not sure screaming and calling people shits and scumbags is particularly honoring the man's memory anyway.

It's funny how people are accused of being disrespectful for offering contructive criticism on one man yet they believe it's okay to scream at and threaten many others.

No Pope fans have addressed this either here or on other sites where this thread has been posted.

It's clear fanatasicm and it smacked of a bleedin' fatwa at times.

QUOTE (Angelophile @ Apr 04 2005, 06.53)

SAJse didn't say the Pope was like Hitler, so the "little Eichmans" comparrison is completely and entirely unjustified as well as being sensationalist crap to try and make it seem like SAJse is some kind of bad guy.

And Ward Churchill didn't say that 9-11 victims were little Eichmans, but said, more or less, thats how the enemy (terrorists) viewed them, making them legitimate targets in their eyes. (taking the full context of his statements). Than again, thats a nuance that noone gave a shit about because it still had NAZI's and 9-11 victims in the same sentence with a seeming comparison.

And such is the case here. I really don't care if it was only made to reinforce a small, barely related point, it was still tasteless and insulting to put a great man revered by many in the same sentence as the worst butcher in centuries. (ok, so that'd really be Stalin, but thats besides the point). Any reasonable person would know that it'd be insulting to the extreme. And you did it anyway. So you're either not a reasonable person or you were intentionally trying to piss alot of people off. What other conclusion is there to draw?

Hitler references are good for shock value and denigration, nothing else. There are few moments or persons in modern or recent history where any such reference or comparison would be remotely valid. Its a cheap tactic and it violates Godwins law.

Using Hitler in any reference IS sensationalist crap. And especially in a matter as sensitive as this for so many, its downright disgusting.

QUOTE (Angelophile @ Apr 04 2005, 06.53)

Try and address the things people have said, not something you've plucked from nowhere to acuse them of.

I addressed the statements made. Others would like to assume that their words don't carry the meaning or impact that they actually do. Their thoughts and intent may have been different, but the words were unmistakeable. I see no problem with my characterizations.

QUOTE (Angelophile @ Apr 04 2005, 06.53)

Not as beneath you as the racist comparrison, however, because that doesn't have the SLIGHTEST connection to what SAJse said and seems to be plucked from nowhere.

Except I didn't call him a racist, but used it as an example of showing how pointless such a disclaimer is when the rest of your words convey said meaning.

QUOTE (SAJse @ Apr 04 2005, 07.02)

The Pope was not compared to Hitler form my perspective* and if people deduce that from my post it's their problem. I would rather they admit that drawing a large crowd does not a good man make.

When your words obviously convey that, what other conclusion is there to draw? I explained my reasoning early in the post, such a reference, no matter the context, is simply uncalled for.

QUOTE (Angelophile @ Apr 04 2005, 09.15)

Agreed, but honestly, I'm not sure screaming and calling people shits and scumbags is particularly honoring the man's memory anyway.

With the level of disrespect that this thread began and continued with for some time is shown, I think its a little late to cry foul when someone hurls a few curse words in that general direction.

QUOTE (Angelophile @ Apr 04 2005, 09.15)

If you don't like the discussion, don't read the thread. If people's views offend you, don't read them. Tolerance is applicable to both sides in this debate, not just one.

Rather than ignoring insults, intolerance, or idiocy (not directly attributing those to you, but conduct in the thread in general) and pretending they don't exist, I choose to confront them. While I have the option of not looking, I also reserve the right to do just that and respond appropriately. And to take offense when warranted.

QUOTE (SAJse @ Apr 04 2005, 09.22)

It's funny how people are accused of being disrespectful for offering contructive criticism on one man yet they believe it's okay to scream at and threaten many others.

Now this gives me a chuckle. If you actually think 90% of the criticism in this thread has been anything close to constructive, you need some help. I've always said that I welcome constructive criticism, but I've seen so little of it here. Seriously, how can you not grasp how insulting half the stuff in this thread has been?

Comment 3, yours...unless I misinterpreted, praying for the Pope's death. Pope on the death bed, but Catholicism is about, your words, 'Crap'n'Crud'. And of course, JP is deluded. Than Catholicism is a Paganfest. Accusations of forcing Dogma, without support. (Anglophile). Pedofile jokes, L. Ninio. And I'll exclude the rest of Ninio's offenses in the thread cause they're too numerous to list. The unwarranted contention that the Pope is getting too much undeserved media attention. As if his life and works deserved less.

The first Mugabe comparison. And there is no way that this is not a comparison. You effectively use the potential example of Mugabe dying to justify...I won't even call it criticism at this point...your slagging of the Pope and the religion. Cause if we'd likely disrespect and bash Mugabe on his deathbed, why not the Pope.

QUOTE (SAJse @ Apr 02 2005, 08.38)

I'm sure if someone started a thread along the lines of "Robert Mugabe is dying of old age. Let's pray" then I'm sure you'd have no problems with people questioned his philosophy and/or intentions.

Then Hitler.

QUOTE (SAJse @ Apr 02 2005, 08.54)

Let's move this up a notch. "Hitler found alive and well but dying of old age. Let's pray".

Than the church is one large money laundering scheme mafia style, Cyclonis. American Idol joke minutes after his death. Sajse. Defense of L.Ninio (perhaps your worst offense ).

And the rest up to this point has been covered in my earlier posts. I ask again, how can you construe any of this as 'constructive criticism'? How can you not recognize how vulgar and insulting it is, especially at this point in time? How can you be the least bit surprised by some of the reactions you got? I'm sorry to say Sajse, but you started off this thread as a complete dick. There's no other way to put it. I think its a little too late to cry victim right now. Your conduct has only gotten better later on the thread as you've been called on the behavior.

Nothing is being cherry picked...all those statements were made and then some. And people have the nerve to ask why they're being cursed out? (I'll contend that I did no such cursing out, all curse words in my post were used for emphasis in a tasteful and limited manner).

And since it was mentioned:

British Newspapers: eh...maybe not. Another rant for another time.

Posted by Associated Press :

QUOTE

Coverage of the death of Pope John Paul II by many television reporters on the scene has been criticized by their brethren working in print. "The desire to match the solemnity of the moment and the mood of mourners brought out some of the most cloying prose in television history," wrote New York Times TV critic Alessandra Stanley, who also commented that NBC anchor Brian Williams and CNN's Aaron Brown "began sounding more Catholic than the cardinals, and Diane Sawyer went into the kind of transports usually associated with St. Teresa of Avila." Julie Hinds of the Detroit Free Press was critical of Fox News and CNN's efforts to turn virtually all their 24-hour coverage to the story, which included an interview with Darrell Mease, a killer who was spared from execution after the pope intervened with the governor of Missouri. "Darrell, was the pope a popular man in prison?" Fox reporter Greta Van Susteren asked. "There aren't many Catholics here, but he wasn't unpopular," Mease replied. Several critics remarked that TV reporters seemed to go out of their way to avoid any discussion of criticism of the pope, from the right or left. When on Fox News, Hussein Ibish of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee remarked that Arabs were impressed by the pope's strong stance against America's war in Iraq, commentator Neil Cavuto attempted to cut him off, saying that "his views were not that black and white on the war." When Ibish responded, "No, I think you're wrong about that," Cavuto replied, "I don't want to argue with you today because I like you." Appearing on MSNBC, NBC anchor Brian Williams recalled covering the pope's "magical trip" to meet with Fidel Castro in 1996, "marred, at its height, by a bulletin from the U.S. that Newsweek magazine was running a story about the president and an intern." All three major TV networks as well as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC plan to carry the pope's funeral on Friday beginning at 4:00 a.m. Eastern Time.

I thought this post was deader than the Pope by now.

see, reading this thread is the reason im not religious. i went to religious education classes from age 5 to 17, and researching the world and how religion has impacted it is why i decided this way. almost every major conflict has had something to do with religion. that, added up with all the inconsistencies in the bible has made me non-religious.

its not atheism, its apathy. saves a lot more stress.

as for the pope, no i didnt agree with everything he did or everything he stood for. but many people did, and it made them feel better about life with the knowledge of this divinity. i dont get that feeling. i dont care. im too literal, the idea of everything forming in a week is too far fetched. life is here because we evolved over millions of years. religion was first formed because the people living back then couldnt figure out the reason of what was happening. depending on the reigon, the stories differed. thats where we get major religions from. growing up now, knowing why everything does what it does due to science, i feel no need fo religion in my life.

but hey, if you like it, im not gonna rain on your parade.

The conflict in this thread had less to do with religion and more to do with people being callous pricks about a subject some people cared very heavily about. And religion involved in every conflict? I'm sure you can say the same thing about economics, class, culture, ideology, greed, pride...and any number of other things.

You're analysis is a tad bit oversimplistic and dismissive. And belief in God does not automatically mean a belief in creationism. And evolution does not disprove the existance of god, nor does it try too. For that matter, evolution at the expense of creationism is also an accepted belief in the Catholic Church.

There are still questions that science cannot answer. Some that it can't really even credibly speculate on. Sure we can hypothesize back to the big bang, but what than? Did existance, the universe as we know it spring randomly out of absolutely nothing? (and if so, what was there before nothing, how did that nothing come about, etc, etc) Or is there some sort of higher being that controls it all, pulls the strings, and put the universe into motion.

Science cannot begin to prove or disprove either notion. One has just as much chance as being right as the other. So barring real faith, you gotta look at religion as a 'what have you got to lose' investment. If there's no god, the true believer and the mouthy atheist are in the same boat upon death. Doesn't matter. But if there is a god, the True Believer has slightly better odds, one would think, of enjoying the afterlife.

So it comes down to a question of what do you have to lose? Pick one of the easier religions, attend on holidays, make your grandmother happy, and be done with it.

So why be a callous prick about the English and the English language on another thread Enlightenment? You don't believe people's national identity can be as important as their religious identity?

Honestly, it's clear you're just arguing for the sake of arguing and don't care either way. You're just on your "intellectual superiority" kick again like when you had friends start threads praising your name a couple of months back.

There's no point in perpetuating the argument unless you actually feel something about it yourself, and it's clear you're just interested in being argumentitive. It's the staple of message boards, after all, but since most people have clearly expressed they want this thread to die, what's the point here?

If you want to prove how clever you are, go argue the season versus series thing some more and we can all be suitable stunned by your shining wit.