I was just wondering... Anyone know why has this man not been arrested? He knowingly covered up child molestation in the vatican, isn't that obstruction of justice? There's letters and all kinds of proof he did it so I don't get it... :(

He's above the law. Obviously.

They've been covering up screw-ups since who knows when. The current pope is not the first one to do it.

This week I was reading the Bible, althought I am an atheist. I was not looking to things I may disagree, but learning more about that culture; then I found this words pronounced by Jesus:

"And whoever shall receive one such little child in my name receives me.
But whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea."
San Mateo 18:5,6

stumble: in spanish version, "escandalizar: acosar, molestar": molesting

They should pay more attention to the Bible... Anyway, they could answer the little childs are a methaphore of all christians. Ok, but at least let's bring those criminals to jail.

Absolutely not. The thing is, the Bible is read too literally.

Most of the writings are metaphorical, and should be adjusted to modern use. Verbatim reading and misconceptions have only led to disasters (apartheid, for instance).

If read literally, its easy to find logical contradictions, or to hide passages and focus on others. If read as a methaphore, the risk is putting too many subjectivity from the reader's point of view according to intrests.

Both extremes lead to excess, that's the main issue for me.

Get a copy of the Bible. Get 3 marker pens, 1 red, 1 green and 1 yellow.

Mark in green the passages that should be taken literally, red the ones that should be taken metaphorically and the ones you aren't sure about in yellow.

Then tell me how you know this.

As Muramasa says, it's far too subjective if taken metaphorically and if taken literally then it is absurd and rife with contradictions.

If taken literally then it has no place in modern society, since it advocates homophobia, stoning of disobedient children and worst of all, slavery, aswell as human sacrifice.

If taken metaphorically, then it is worthless as a holy book for a religion since it's subjective what a metaphor could mean.

Anyway, it can have some use...

Old people feel good or consolated when reading the Bible, for exemple my grandmother used to read it. But when I asked to explain what she read, she proved she barely managed to follow the plot: only very clear passages and known sentences. Anyway, she liked to read it from time to time, and felt good when doing it.

I don't mean the Bible is for ignorants or only old people, but at least it can have some salutary use. She known the Bible since she was a child, so reading it was like feeling at home or something like that, not just like reading a novel...

(She died some months ago and now I enjoy her own Bible)

Every teaching of Jesus (as described in the Bible) is more or less a metaphor. Even the Ten Commandments, upon which most laws in civilized are based on, are only instructional. They might have been clearer back in the day: civilized nations weren't really complex.

How do you know they are metaphors?

Those sorts of laws (No killing or stealing etc )have existed in societies throughout history, including societies which significantly predate the Old Testament. The Code of Hammurabi is a good example.

*No other gods before me: Instituting this as a law would violate freedom of religion
* No creation of idols: Instituting this as a law would would violate freedom of religion and freedom of speech
* No taking the lord's name in vain: Instituting this law would violate freedom of speech.
* Remember the Sabbath day: Certainly there is no law demanding observation of the sabbath. Instituting this as a law would violate freedom of religion. Furthermore, which day is the sabbath, friday, saturday, sunday, or one of the other days?
* Honor thy father and mother: With the exception of unruly children laws, which apply only to minors, instituting this as a law would violate freedom of speech.
* Adultery: It is grounds for divorce and alimony, but it is not punished in any way to indicate that it is a real crime. Instituting this law would violate a number of human rights.
* Coveting: Instituting this as a law would violate the right to pursue happiness, and would be contradictory to any capitalist system.

In Exodus 21, the chapter right after the Ten Commandments, God gives various instructions on how to properly conduct slavery, including the rules for selling one's own daughter as a slave. There is no obvious reason why God's instructions in Exodus 20 are moral and should be followed today, but not God's instructions in Exodus 21.

I can't say that I know them to be metaphors myself, I can only believe what most research on the subject has revealed.

Frankly enough, I can't be bothered to find a source, but let's stick to common sense: do you honestly think one could turn water into wine, or feed 5000 people with five loaves and two fish?

There are too many things that our little minds cannot even understand and try to rationalize. So about miracles, why not believe it? Human beings already believe in the Big Bang and Evolution, so why not miracles? And there is not exact proof for those theories and yet they teach them.

I think the real reason he's not arrested is because to many he's a respectable guy. Popes been too respected to be attacked. People might arrest cult leaders like they did a couple of years ago.

No I don't believe water can be turned into wine etc I'm arguing against it. You said The Ten commandments are responsible for many laws we, in modern society have, I disagree. The Bible and The Ten commandments are not the be all and end all of morality. The only modern laws we have in modern society that can be seen in the ten commandments, can also be found from way before the ten commandments. The Code of Hammurabi is a good example.

The Bible itself has zero, of what we today, call good morals. It considers being homosexual a sin worthy of death:


Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

The Bible explicitly condones slavery:

Exodus 21:20 to 21:22 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21:22 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.

In revelations 9:3 to 9:5 it says that god will send locusts to torment "those have not the seal of god in their forehead" for 5 months.

There is also evidence for the big bang, and evolution is a fact that you can see for yourself.

The evidence for the big bang is that we can detect cosmic background radiation, extremely far out into space, it turns into microwaves by the time it reaches Earth and you can see these microwaves when you turn your television to a channel it cannot recieve and get static.

Evolution is a fact. You can see it yourself by going to a museum. One example of evolution is Darwins finch. The only theory in relation to evolution is how it happens, one of them being, natural selection. Evolution is not random either.

Admitedlly the evidence for the big bang is small but it is at least something, and has grounding in science. Miracles such as turning water into wine have no basis in scientific fact and are not based on science, but magic.

I think that is a fine point of view, even for atheists like me for exemple. Human being is not only science and reason: there is a space in his mind reserved for mith, faith, and those other irrational concepts/feelings which also defines humans. We may not forget that.

One thing I'll never do is trying to convince a religious person to become an atheist. Its lucky for them they believe there is another life and their dead familiars are still present in other world. The counterpart is that you may have to accept rules which you may not like, but I admire religious persons for daring to believe in things which are not supported by reason, in a modern world where their attitude is watched as old-fashioned and away from knowledge.

I on the other hand, do not admire nor respect those who have blind faith without reason.

I love arguing against people so I'll continue my argument on Big Bang. Have any humans ever witness one of these phenomenon? If so, how do we know that this happened to our galaxy?

As for Evolution, you can see that the earth is young based on the comets.
If the earth were old, we would not have any more comets. Unless there were an oort cloud ( excuse me if I spelled that wrong), which no one have ever witness.

And for miracles, how is that some people fall off building that are more than three stories and live? Also, how can someone be under a building for a week and survive? So why can't water turn into wine when in fact fire can burn on top of water?

I would argue more but I don't want to cause any enmity amongst us. Also, to make this clear I'm not arguing as a Christian or whatever. To keep it objective.

The Old Testament begun 3000 years ago, so their moral is expected to be very different. At least, like any other moral it has good things like respect to parents -but only if they believe in the "living God". Anyway, the New Testament talks about compassion and focuses on weak people, which makes it less brutal than old testament, but still doesnt' fit well with modern societies.

In democratic countries, laws are voted by people, and that is the main code everyone should respect. I think democracy is pretty corrupted nowadays, but at least politicians have to act whith some minimum care to collect votes. Anyway, I think there is no real "order" in democracy, and I'd say there is not real democracy but "parlamentarism" nowadays.
If religious laws crashes with civil laws, civil laws should prevail: the scandal of pederasty is an example of what happens if civil law is ignored.

That's my humble/improvised opinion.

2nd Edit: Also, malik, don't worry. No bad feelings at all on my part.

We know the earth is old. We have multiple radioctive dating methods that ALL give an estimate that is similar. We also have fossils that have been dated, by using multiple methods, and we have quite a few that show the earth is older than 6000 years old.

http://www.wikihow.com/Survive-a-Long-Fall This is all I could find on people surviving a fall from great height.

All the second example of someone being trapped under a building shows, is that humans can survive for some time without nutrition.

Fire cannot burn ontop of water as water does not burn. If you think you have seen a photo of this, then there was no doubt something ontop of the water, such as oil. Turning water to wine and fire burning ontop of water (It doesn't) are also two entirely different things.

You are saying, I do not know how X works, therefore god did it. Surely you must see how illogical this is?

Of course noone has seen a big bang, but we do have some evidence for it (Cosmic background radiation that i mentioned) The Big Bang theory, does not propose that the big bang happened to our galaxy, but to all of the universe btw.

Muramasa: We are in agreement that it doesn't fit well with modern times, but this does not stop people from getting their morality from the Bible out of pure ignorance of what is contained in it. I've never met a religious person, in all my life, that has actually read whichever holy book they worship.

There's also willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. Famous creationists like Ray 'The Banana Man' Comfort, or Kent Hovind or Ben Stein are prime examples of willful ignorance. Kent hovind once said at a presentation he was giving to creationists like himself, that one chromosome contains DNA to recreate one entire person exactly as they are... Yes, he said clones can be made from 1 chromosome. I don't know if that means anything to you but this claim is utterly ridiculous. The problem is, a lot of creationists look up to people like that simply because they don't know better and trust him, and as a result, they get fed false information about evolution and atheism. He even claimed evolution is a religion.

The Ten Commandments' responsibility of modern laws was not my intention. Like you said, the Ten Commandments are based upon even older laws. However, the same form of the commandments (i.e. laws), wherever may they have been found, is the basis of most of today's morals and laws.

The reason we're clashing is because I'm not familiar with the Old Testament at all; I believe most of the writings you posted are from that book. The teachings by Jesus and so on are found in the New Testament, which I find a highly metaphorical work.

I'm in no way trying to justify the atrocities religions have forwarded. But if someone very religious wanted to live a life suited for modern society, s/he should never read the Bible literally.

Just... what? Out of curiosity, how old do you think the Earth would be?

Yup, they were all from the OT but you can find bad stuff in the NT aswell. The NT never explicitly condones slavery like the OT does but it does acknowledge the institution exists, and makes no attempt to denounce it. A moral god would get rid of slavery, the fact that he did not shows he is immoral by modern societys standards, which means there is no reason for anyone to worship him. Creationists often say that god did help slaves, he helped the israelites. However, he only helped them because they prayed to him specifically. The fact that their god lets people be slaves of other people, when he could put an end to it, just because those slaves don't believe in him, shows he is evil.

If he is able but not willing, then he is immoral.
If he is willing but not able, why call him god?

I would argue that since it (NT) is open to interpretation, it serves no purpose for any kind of organised religion. There's also the thing I said earlier about the marker pens etc Anyone making assertions in regards to what passages are metaphorical or literal (Not you since you have only gone so far to say you personally find it metaphorical, which is fine) and how they should be interpreted would also be claiming to have divine knowledge. Unless they can prove god spoke to them (Impossible) then noone has any reason to believe them.

I have no clue how old the earth is. I doubt anyone will know the exact date unless we find out in a later life.


Steve, your information doesn't explain why we still have comets.
Also, have any of you guys ever actually spent any time studying under someone who is Christian. I've studied under Christian and atheist.
I also study the old philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. Socrates had some interesting views. Based on The Last Days Of Socrates, he was coming towards the belief of God.

Wether or not Socrates even existed, noone is sure.

Anyway, I have no idea what you mean when you say if the Earth was old we would not have comets.

Ok. Comets have a certain lifespan, I've forgot at the moment excuse me.
It is said that if a certain amount of years passed the comets will die out. So if the universe is old, we shouldn't have comets.

Doubting Socrates ever lived. I never heard such thing. There were enough witnesses to prove it. We can use witnesses to prove things like we use them in court.

This I don't get. What are you striving for with this?

No matter can simply disappear. Even if a comet has a lifespan, so what? The comet won't just vanish into nothingness. Besides, the movement of comets doesn't prove a single thing, except for them having an orbit.

According to what we know today, the age of the Earth is around 4.54 billion years. The universe is around 13.75 billion years old. If you don't believe it, just google it. If you still don't believe it after reading it all, come up with your own conclusions. I'm not here to judge.

The common theory is that Socrates was invented by Plato. Outside of Plato there are few sources that mention Socrates, we also have NONE of Socrates own writings.

Halleys comet is projected to last 40, 000 years.

"Since technology has increased, observational evidence has been added to the already mounting theoretical evidence. Ground based equipment has been able to confirm the existence of the Kuiper belt in the last 15 years (Stern 2003). The most recent breakthrough in the quest to understand comets and our solar system came recently when an astronomer made the first claim of an actual observation of an Oort cloud object (Irion 2004)." - Read this: http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/content/creat...ntegration.html

Has plenty of useless info in their for padding unfortunately, which is why I just copy pasted that one paragraph but even so, if you want to read the whole thing go ahead. Kuiper belt was actually discovered in 1992.

Edit: Comets do lose matter from everytime they pass near the sun in their orbit. Even if the kuiper belt had not been discovered and noone ever thought of the Oort cloud and we didn't have evidence for it that still is no reason to assume god did it. Just because humans may not understand something does not mean that it must be supernatural. Not only that, but even in the situation I just described, that would also not automatically mean that it would be the christian god. It could very well be the celestial teapot or the invisible pink unicorn. Even if the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud were not known about, we would still have various radioactive dating methos that show us the Earth is actually very old.

I actually got the idea from a theologist. Perhaps, I need to talk with him more in depth about what he meant. I need to find my notes to explain it more.


As for my own opinion on the world, I believe to be old. As I said, I am being quite objective.
Anyways, it's quite funny how this turned into science class when the topic was about the pope.

Not really a Science class, just a debate on religion. :P

Word of advice. Do not trust the words of famous theologists such as Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort or any of those guys.

The fact that the Kuiper belt was discovered completely ruins that comet argument, but this doesn't stop guys like Kent Hovind etc from using it. Something that is interesting is Kent hovind taught high school science for 15 years. This is a man that says 1 chromosome contains enough DNA to clone a human (It doesn't, not by a longshot) and that evolution is the stupidest most dangerous religion known to man. Annoys how so many people think "darwinism" (No such thing) or Atheism or being a supporter of evolution are all one and the same, and a religion.

You were driving me crazy on your comment about the existence of Socrates. Then I remembered that Plato claimed to have been taught by Socrates. He also showed how Socrates' teachings influenced his philosophy. Plato would be crazy to make up a guy and claim that. Also, there were other of Socrates' disciples who wrote about him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates#The_Socratic_problem

I'm not saying he DIDN'T exist, but that wether or not he did exist, is not set in stone right now. We have none of his writings, none of what is written about him is a literal history of the time. Those who supposedly killed him and put him on trial left no evidence that this ever happened.

"Socrates was a popular manifestation of a common rhetorical tool of the era, that of using argumentum ad verecundiam by having a hypothetical teacher make the argument for the philosopher."

That's one hypothesis, from the wikipedia page, that is interesting.

The thing about his writings is the matter of if he could write or liked to write. Remember that worldview they went to war first.

As for the trial,
maybe they made Plato write it for them.

Maybe, there's no way of knowing. I think that if Plato were to have written something as important as court documents and recorded it, we would know, and I certainly think he would have mentioned who he was writing on behalf of.

Hmm... I have one of Plato's book on my bookcase. I'll look through it and get back to you on it.

Some news for you on the Pope's scandal.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100511/ap_on_...u_portugal_pope

Christopher Hitchens once said something about how the church claims to be infallible, and has for hundreds of years, then when all of this bad stuff happens to them they apologise for it. They get proven wrong with science, they admitted not too long ago that they were wrong in persecuting gallileo. After all of this, they then think that they can go back to being infallible again, if they just apologise.

If the pope wanted justice he would hand himself in.

We must not judge the church in general.
Basically, the church is split into two.
Roman Catholic and Protestant.
If you studied the Reformation, you'll see what happened.
Roman Catholic still stick to their old beliefs and some of it is heretical according to the Bible. For instance, baptism will save from Hell is a common belief in Catholic church but Protestant didn't believe that. That was one of the issues in the Reformation.

Actually, Galileo wasn't persecuted by the Church, they warned him of excommunication, unless you may say that is persecuting, because of their scientific belief. The Church actually played a major role in Science, it has been said they were the reason science began to happen again after the Dark Ages. The main reason is "they wanted to learn about God's creation."

There always been some sexual assault issues in the Catholic Church because their leaders are too ignorant or arrogant to deal with it. I do find it humorous that civilization would condemn a Cult leader faster than Catholic Church leader.

The curch is responsible for many great centers of learning. They are also responsible for trying to hinder inventions that came from them.

The clergy used to be the only ones who could read and write. They condemned the printing press as a work from Satan. Pretty obvious that they wanted to make damn sure only they could read and write.

They did punish Galileo for his findings. They took him to trial and he spent the remainder of his life under house arrest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#The_Trial

Not only that, but who should we really thank for our current knowledge? The greeks obviously, however, Islam is the one that were responsible for maintaining the knowledge of the greeks.

Well that was the Roman Catholic Church not the Protestant.

The Roman Catholic leaders were mere hypocrites who were power hungry. Although, some of the monks and priests in their church disagreed and were excommunicated. They formed the Protestant Church, which is nowadays Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran etc. A lot of those names are based on Reformers.

We must not forget that Africans played a great deal in our knowledge too. Remember the Egyptians. Also, the Greeks associated with Africa so I can assume that some of their ideas may have been influenced by Africans. Plus a lot of Africans are Muslims.

I agree Islam played a major deal in our knowledge. We should praise them for making the lute. Quite humorous based on the fact that music is satanic to them.

As for Galileo, I had no clue. I should blame that stupid inaccurate science book I studied from.

Uhh... no.

Lolz. Correction, they introduced the lute to the Europeans. Although,
the lute can be traced back to 2000 years ago in the Hittites Empire.

Don't know anything about that, but I was referring to them thinking music to be satanic.

Catholic church banned the tritone in music. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritone Don't know if they have got rid of the ban but even so, I would love to see them try and enforce it now.

I also think that the catholic church should be brought to justice for crimes against humanity. The inquisition arguably being the worst of them, aswell as their desire to hinder science throughout the years by deeming scientific acheivments as satanic, then there's the lying to third world Africans (Largely uneducated people who would know no better) and telling them condoms increases the chances of catching AIDS and obviously the fact that child abuse is something that the catholic church is obviously pretty big on.