God bless him.

I thought the words of Cardinal Camillo Ruini the vicar for Rome, speaking yesterday, more or less summed it up for me: "His faith is so strong and so full and the experience of God so intensively lived that he is already seeing and touching the Lord."

God bless him, indeed.

Whatever our views of his precise position, let us pray for our Roman Catholic friends at this time, and let us reflect on the unquestionable good he achieved in the world - for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

May jesus welcome him with open arms

A man of great courage, great humanity who possessed wisdom, grace and humility. The Catholic Church has lost a great leader.

I pray that His Holiness is happy with the God he loved.

May our prayers be with our fellow Roman Catholics, may we show them respect while they mourn a great man. May Pope John Paul II rest in peace.

Remember

Relax people,
There have been hundreds of popes and dozens of Gods

But there has only been one Devil

You should all be concerned about my welfare

May God's love be upon him, and his tender comfort to all those who mourn a beloved leader, a great man of peace, humility and devotion.
Rest in peace Pope John Paul II

Not just a world leader who influenced history but a man who reminded us constantly that this life was merely the foreshadowing of the life of the age to come. Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord and may perpetual light shine upon him

I was surprisingly moved by the news of his death, I would not consider myself to be a devout catholic and I have found myself disagreeing with him on some issues.However in his passing it is self evident that he was a great man, "well done good and faithful servant" may he rest in peace, and may his call for peace, and its achievement everywhere be his legacy.God Bless Him

"I have found myself disagreeing with him on some issues."

Likewise. I disagreed with him on a number of issues, much too backward and conservative for my liking. Still the only Pope i've known in my lifetime and a man certainly worthy of much respect. A good man and a good christian.

I think it the ultimate in hypocrisy to praise it death, one who you castigated while alive, so those who are easily offended should read no further.

Like all significant world figures there are pluses and minuses in the record of JP2. On the plus side there is his brave defiance of the communist regimes that oppressed the peoples of Eastern Europe for decades. However for me that is completely eclipsed by the record of the Catholic Church when it came to dealing with clerical child abuse. Here JP2 led an organisation that systematically aided and abetted in the abuse of the most weak and defenceless amongst us. It defied the laws of several countries in the reporting of abuse and gave access known child abused the ability to carry on with their criminal behaviour.

JP2 has led the Catholic Church at a time of the greatest protestantisation of its followers. Today in the developed world, Catholics openly defy church teaching in higher numbers than ever and let their conscious decide what is morally right and wrong. His successor will have a major job trying to restore any respect for church teachings on moral issues.

KiethM

Like all significant world figures there are pluses and minuses in the record of JP2.

Pol Pot and Hitler spring to mind as significant world figures without any pluses to their name.

Then their was Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, Idi Amin, Saddam.

It's easier to forgive the imaturity of your timing than the sloppiness of your rhetoric. But under the circumstances we should extend our charity to both.

Ah, Keith,

Yes, you're right. JPII was wholly responsible for the abuse of children by the clergy.

At the hour of his death, let's remember that sectarian point-scoring is the path to peace.

JD, firstly please read my post. I never said that JP2 was wholly responsible for clerical child abuse. However as leader of the organisation when it conspired to shield the abusers from the authorities and also provided abusers with additional opportunities to continue their criminality, he has the reponsibility for the activities of that organisation. Several bishops, archbishops and cardinals were found to have been involved in the cover up, so the colusion obviously went on at a very high level. This is most certainly not secrarian point scoring. All public figures have their record reviewed as soon as they die. Why should the Pope be any different? I believe that truth is the path to peace.

Henry, of the public figures you name I can think of pluses for almost all of them (even I stuggle with Pol Pot and Idi Amin). When has facing the facts and telling the truth become imature?

Henry94,
It's good to see that republicans believe that the likes of Stalin and Mao have absolutely nothing in their favour. Should we also take it that by mentioning Saddam that you support the US/British move to take him from power?

It is clear that widespread clerical abuse of children had been a major problem for a number of popes. Unfortunately for JP2 the scale of the problem and the outing of the abuse on an international level occurred during his pontificate.
Because of the secretive nature of the Catholic Church (especially in the higher echelons) we will never fully know who knew what and when. Did cardinals and bishops try to cover up things locally in order to protect their own patch?

His very public summonimg and subsequent chastisement of U.S. cardinals was an indication that he was prepared to deal with the problem in a manner different from others.
It was also under his pontificate that measures ensuring the open reporting of allegations to relevant authorities did come into effect. Too little too late? Again history will be the judge.

JPII was a good man and a true believer in his faith. I repect him and his legacy. Things are not black and white in this world, but he lived what he believed ! I wish that alone could be said for most people including his critics and nay sayers !!

Jonathan

Should we also take it that by mentioning Saddam that you support the US/British move to take him from power?

I would certainly be opposed to any move to reinstate him. I believe it is for the people of Iraq acting alone without outside interference to decide their own political future.

Henry, so if Iraqi's voted Saddam back in to power you would support that? The people of Germany "acting alone without outside interference" voted for Adolf Hitler. No matter what the support for a party is it doesn't mean that they are right. Hitler, Saddam, Stalin and Gerry Adams all have or had huge support but time has proved, and will prove, that all were monstrous.

Jonathan
"No matter what the support for a party is it doesn't mean that they are right. Hitler, Saddam, Stalin and Gerry Adams all have or had huge support but time has proved, and will prove, that all were monstrous."

You could probably add George Bush to that list ;)

Sad. A pity that death evokes such rancor.
Requiescat in pace.
Bob Murphy

Keith won't be enjoying RTE ONE's wall-to-wall coverage of events, reminiscent of the way schedules were wiped for the aftermath of Princess Diana's death in 1997.

There is, of course, room for critical comment on the last Pope's role and message, and certainly of the wider church which he headed, maybe even the inconsistency and hypocrisy of some of it, and I think Keith has a point on the hypocrisy of reaction, too. (Though it would hardly be hypocritical or undignified just to keep quiet.)

But there are, no doubt, many people here today who are genuinely grieving for their religious leader, and it is surely right that we should show respect and be thoughtful for their sadness.

I have many problems with the Church but on hearing of his passing grabed the beads and said a prayer.

He will be sadly missed

It's sad when anyone dies, whether he be Pontiff or not. Was the Pope a really holy man? I don't know one way or the other-how can we judge?
Speaking as an ex-Catholic there are many criticisms to be made of the Church that he led for so long; just as almost any form of organized religion seems to have a lot of flaws.
May he, and those dying daily in Iraq, or children in impoverished third world countries, or people here in the so-called first world, may they ALL rest in peace.

I am sure I speak the words on the minds of many when I say:

I liked the Pope
The Pope smoked dope.

Jonathan McCullough

The people of Germany "acting alone without outside interference" voted for Adolf Hitler

Critics of democracy often claim that Hitler was democratically elected to power. This is untrue.

Hitler never had more than 37 percent of the popular vote in the honest elections that occurred before he became Chancellor.

Saddam could never have won a free election because the majority Shias would not have suppported him. Neither would the Kurds.

Hitler was entirely democratically elected. With 37%, he was the lead candidate for the Chancellorship, and was appointed entirely in line with the then German constitution by President Hindenburg.

The democratic mandate was genuine and legitimate. However, he chose to abuse it. There's a lesson there somewhere...

However, I thought this thread was about the sad passing of the Pope? It would be fitting to point to his role in the ending of another evil empire that had followed since 1945.

I never said that JP2 was wholly responsible for clerical child abuse. However as leader of the organisation when it conspired to shield the abusers from the authorities and also provided abusers with additional opportunities to continue their criminality, he has the reponsibility for the activities of that organisation.

So, not wholly responsible, just responsible for the actions of those throughout the entire organisation. I can see how I misinterpreted your words.

JP2 has led the Catholic Church at a time of the greatest protestantisation of its followers....His successor will have a major job trying to restore any respect for church teachings on moral issues.

That "analysis" looks sectarian to me. If it was not intended to be, your comments should have been made more carefully.

Can anyone answer me something which has been interesting me?

Why was the Pope administered the last rites? Surely as God's representative on earth and someone who Catholics believe to be infallible he wouldnt need this.

Just something which interested me.

Infalliable on matters of doctine of faith but the Pope was a sinner like the rest of us and therefore received the Last Rites.

"Infalliable on matters of doctine of faith"

Not in my opinion

As a Catholic, I appreciate your condolence expressed on the death of Pope John Paul II.
He was truly a Christian leader and cared deeply about all the people of Ireland. Thank you to my fellow Ulstermen, we are truly a unique group of people and perhaps one day we shall get it all together! God bless!

'Not in my opinion'

Not infalible yourself then, Chris.

For the Pope to issue an infalible statement four conditions must be met:

He must be speeking officially as the head of the entire church. This is called ex cathedra, "from the chair" of Peter.

His statement must apply to the "entire" church.

It must be a statement on faith or morals.

The Pope must intend for the statement to be a final decision on a teaching of faith or morals.

So, if the Pope fancied a particular nag on the 2:30 at Doncaster we would be wise not to put the house on it.

"Why was the Pope administered the last rites? Surely as God's representative on earth and someone who Catholics believe to be infallible he wouldnt need this."

It's no longer called the last rites, it's the "Sacrament of the Infirm" and it's given to anyone "who might be sick and facing death, old age, serious mental illness, people who are going to have a serious operation, and those who might find strength with the sacrament."

"In the Sacrament of the Infirm, we pray for the sick person to be healed in body and spirit"

"The Sacrament of the Infirm is for those especially who needs strength because of their illness. Some of the graces people can receive is courage, calmness, peace and strength to overcome their sickness or old age."

Btw the Pope also received the Sacrement in 1981 after he was shot.

Someone thinks you are an idiot because you were too stupid to check Google before asking a question. ;)

I believe that a lot of people (namely the majority of the 1 billion Roman Catholics who live on Earth) are looking back on KAROL WOJTOLA's life and lomg-winded stint at the head of the Papish Church of Rome through rose-tinted glasses!

My first problem with the man was that he was prejudiced and sexist, in that he did not agree with women becoming priests.

However, my biggest problem with him was his intransigence and lack of compassion in his condemnation of contraception of any form, which directly led to millions of deaths in Third World countries where AIDS was rife!

If he had encouraged contraception in Third World countries, Roman Catholics there would have listened to him and used protection, limiting the spread of the deadly AIDS virus and saving millions of lives!

Although I do however commend his plea for peace in Ulster, at his open-air rally in Drogheda circa '79, I believe the man lacked, amongst other things, wisdom.

ONE FAITH, ONE CROWN, THE PROTESTANT FAITH WILL NEVER BE PUT DOWN... OUR CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED!

'I believe the man lacked, amongst other things, wisdom.'

It's all about faith and conviction, which he had in spades. We are talking about religion after all. I personally disagree with him on many issues, but then I’m a lapsed Catholic. His interpretation of the bible was that there could be no contraception, women priests etc. This does not make him unwise, but a faithful practitioner of his religion. If you’ve an issue, it is with Catholic doctrine and not the man.

Your interpretation of the bible is different. It’s as simple as that. While disagreeing with him on several issues, I do admire his conviction, and his non pandering to what was popular, which might well have ‘earned’ him greater converts. He was very unpolitician like in this manner.

Pope John Paul The Great - A Good and Faithful servant.

‘If he had encouraged contraception in Third World countries, Roman Catholics there would have listened to him and used protection, limiting the spread of the deadly AIDS virus and saving millions of lives!’

BTW, there’s a fatal flaw in your argument, which probably stems from your own bias.

You’re assuming that the people having sex would listen to the Pope and practice the relatively hugely expensive practice of safe sex. But, hang on a minute, the undeniably huge spread of Aids in Africa is down to a largely particular Sub-Sahara disregard for the morals of non-promiscuity. So, if your going to go out shagging left right and centre in a less than Catholic prescribed way, why do you think anyone would stop to put on a Johnny?

There is certainly some logic to the call for faithfulness. Contraceptives would certainly have saved lives in the past, but what about the future? As for the Pope being the cause of millions of deaths, well the fact you can believe that says more about your own brainwashing.

There's a lot of mileage in an assessment of John Paul's Papacy - but it will require a lot of careful consideration. That aside, I don't think it's particularly appropriate at this stage.

Many people call Karol Wojtyla great. I think of truly great men like Washington, Franklin, Madison, John Marshall, Franklin Roosevelt, Churchill, Marlborough, Wellington, and Nelson. With them in mind, I have to question the judgement of people who rate fortunate small beer as Wojtyla so high, and who will repeat the same slavish, fawning panegyrics about the next pope and the next and....

DUP LEADER SPEAKS ON THE DEATH OF THE POPE

Speaking this evening Dr Paisley said,

“We need to learn that everyone on earth no matter what position he holds or the claims he makes or the support he has must come to death and eternity. All of us will stand before God. The Bible says ‘It is appointed unto man once to die and after this the judgement.’ The only way we can prepare for death and eternity is through faith in Jesus Christ our Lord and His finished work on the cross at Calvary, which culminated in His bodily resurrection from the tomb and His ascension to God’s right hand in Heaven.

We can understand how Roman Catholics feel at the death of the Pope and we would want in no way to interfere with their expression of sorrow and grief at this time."

Very gracious, I think.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything "Paisleyite" and "No to Sinn Fein/IRA..." have just posted but I want to ask "Davros" why it is unappropriate to discuss WOJTOLA's Papacy? Is that not what the thread is all about?

CL
"his intransigence and lack of compassion in his condemnation of contraception of any form, which directly led to millions of deaths in Third World countries"

This really takes the prize for the stupidest thing I have read in a while.

Paisleyite
"Very gracious, I think."

Gracious? I don't think so. But the best we could hope for from someone like him I suppose.

Typo-inappropriate

maca,
You can't call my opinions the "stupidest thing I have read in a while" and not back it up with evidence to support your claims!

maca

Would you rather Paisley engaged in some of the slop-bucket hypocrisy that we are seeing displayed around the world? At least the man can acknowledge what the death of the Pope means to the RC population, without diluting his own Protestant scriptural beliefs.

btw, we all WILL stand before God and give account of ourselves.

No, No, No, No

They fact YOUR list of Greats only contains Anglo-Saxons speaks volumes.

'Washington, Franklin, Madison, John Marshall, Franklin Roosevelt, Churchill, Marlborough, Wellington, and Nelson'

smcgifff,
You say,
"AS for the Pope being the cause of millions of deaths, well the fact that you can believe that says more about your own brainwashing".

Who's brainwashed me? The North Antrim / Londonderry UDA? The Orange Order? The DUP? The Presbyterian Church? The British Government?

I have my own mind

Cl
"You can't call my opinions the "stupidest thing I have read in a while" and not back it up with evidence to support your claims!"

Evidence to support my opinion that something is the stupidest thing I have read in a while. How would that work exactly?

And where's your evidence that his "intransigence and lack of compassion ... directly led to millions of deaths in Third World countries"

Paisleyite
In truth i'm not too interested in anything he has to say, and certainly not on this.

'I have my own mind'

Then use it. Answer my assertions regarding the claim the Pope was responsible for the deaths of millions.

I'm claiming you made a kneejerk comment. Support your belief that John Paul II’s stance on contraception was the reason for millions of deaths. I’ve told you why your comment is rubbish and likely to be a product of sectarianism.

maca

"In truth i'm not too interested in anything he has to say, and certainly not on this."

An open-minded sort of a fellow aren't we?

mcgiff

The anti-contraceptive stance of the Roman Church has led to thousands of deaths on the continent of Africa. I think CL's figures i.e. millions, may be a bit of an exaggeration but that does not alter the fundamental truth that the Church of Rome urges millions of people in countries ravaged by AIDS to engage in unprotected sex.

Paisleyite
"An open-minded sort of a fellow aren't we?"

Pretty much actually. Just that's there's some people not worth listening to, especially when they have spent 30 odd years insulting me, my country, my language and my religion.

"“We need to learn that everyone on earth no matter what position he holds or the claims he makes or the support he has must come to death and eternity. All of us will stand before God. The Bible says ‘It is appointed unto man once to die and after this the judgement.’ The only way we can prepare for death and eternity is through faith in Jesus Christ our Lord and His finished work on the cross at Calvary, which culminated in His bodily resurrection from the tomb and His ascension to God’s right hand in Heaven.

We can understand how Roman Catholics feel at the death of the Pope and we would want in no way to interfere with their expression of sorrow and grief at this time."

Very gracious, I think.

Posted by: Paisleyite at April 4, 2005 11:10 AM"

Par for the course from Dr NO and the Dupes.

"Grace" sees beauty in ugly things.

Dr NO is far from grace, he even sees ugliness where there is beauty.

Paisleyite
"the fundamental truth that the Church of Rome urges millions of people in countries ravaged by AIDS to engage in unprotected sex"

You're joking right? Can you give me just one quote where the Pope said people should have unprotected sex?

"Pretty much actually. Just that's there's some people not worth listening to"

Even when said individual is acknowledging the grief of the RC community at this time? What part of Paisley's staement do you actually disagree with or are you so blinded by hatred that you would rather shoot the messanger than listen to his message?

I used the word "like", not "only". Whatever "volumes" speak to you arise from the propagandised mind of a papist. To continue: Ayn Rand, Aristotle, Galileo, Montesquiou, Diderot, Bramante, Palladio, Da Vinci, Michelangelo...and you are perfectly free to worship and praise the golden calf.

Maca

Are you trying to tell me that the Roman Catholic Church now accepts the use of condoms? This is a significant shift.

Sex without a condom = unprotected sex.

Ergo, by discouraging the use of one, they encourage a high rate of the other.

paisleyite - Certain catholic aid agencies do indeed support condom use and were supported by the Irish Bishops.

Paisleyite
"are you so blinded by hatred that you would rather shoot the messanger than listen to his message?"

Remember this is the man who yelled "I denounce you. Anti-Christ" to the Pope. And you think I should take anything he has to say seriously?
Want more quotes?

I don't hate anyone, please stop trying to be insulting.

'the Church of Rome urges millions of people in countries ravaged by AIDS to engage in unprotected sex.'

Call me an intellectual snob, Paisleyite, but that statement is so pathetic that it does not deserve a considered response. Sorry, but is Protestant intellect this bankrupt?

Paisleyite
"Ergo, by discouraging the use of one, they encourage a high rate of the other."

Interesting logic. The catholic church is against sex outside of marraige and adultery. They do not "encourage unprotected sex", as you well know.

Anyway, work to be done, have phun...

How far from grace can one get ?

maca

"Anti-Christ" means "in the place of Christ". I believe the Pope does indeed place himself in the role of Christ.

The Bible teaches that there is only one mediator between God and man - Jesus Christ - but the Roman Catholic Church, through its convuluted system of confessionals and praying to Saints, usurps the role of Jesus. On that score, Ian Paisley was correct in what he said, even if the manner in which he said it was inappropriate.

Davros

Certain agencies perhaps, but it isn't the official line of the Roman Church.

CL

his intransigence and lack of compassion in his condemnation of contraception of any form, which directly led to millions of deaths in Third World countries

Get a grip. Intransigence - fair enough, Lack of compassion? Only the brainwashed could sum up the 26 years as Pope with such a statement.

And how exactly can a celibate pensioner, living in Rome DIRECTLY cause the deaths of millions of people in developing contries through his views on contraception?

I don't agree with his position (namely the position of the Catholic Church) but as has been pointed out here, if people followed all the teachings on sexual morality then the spread of HIV/AIDS wouldn't be a problem.

In a world of tacky celebrities and pork-belly politicians he stood out as a semi-permanent institution - unwilling to give an inch on what he saw as core values, regardless of what was current public opinion. And when the fundamentals are sound this will always result in the good outweighing the bad. Consistency in a world gone mad.

May he rest in peace.

Have to agree with Davros. There were pluses and minuses to John Paul's Papacy, but there is a time and a place for a dispassionate examination of his Papacy - and this isn't it. Now is a time for those who want to mourn the Pope to do so - and for the rest to respect that. Whatever you think about the man, he showed great courage and dignity throughout his long illness. People should be dignified at this time.

One thing that surely cannot be disputed is that Karol Wojtyla was an extraordinary man. He spoke eight languages, had a clutch of doctorates, was a hiker, a swimmer, could have been a professional goalkeeper, was a singer, an actor in an avant-garde theatre troupe, studied for the priesthood in an underground seminary while his country was under Nazi occupation, became a powerful Archbishop in a nominally atheist state and later became the Pope from behind the Iron Curtain. The third-longest Papacy in history, the first Slavic Pope, the first non-Italian Pope in 400 years, the youngest in 140 odd. It's a hell of a CV, you'd have to admit. His life was full of complexities. How many people do you know who are both bookish and sporty? And who are exceptional in both fields? How many social conservatives have you ever heard of who have performed in Dadaist plays? Can one be a conservative rebel? (For John Paul was surely both.)

I have long disagreed with his views on several things - for example, abortion and contraception. But one could never take this away from him: his moral and philosophical frameworks were coherent and consistent. You could call him dogmatic or wrong-headed, but never hypocritical. For example, when he talked about a ``culture of life'' he didn't just use it as a glib phrase to justify his stances on abortion, contraception or euthanasia (as the Texan hangman, invader of Iraq and author of Guantanamo did recently when he used John Paul's phrase re. Terri Schiavo - now there is an example of an incoherent moral framework.) John Paul followed the principle through, opposing the death penalty and war every bit as strongly. One might disagree with his views, but one can't dismiss them or the sincerity in which they were held.

I have to agree with Maca: Paisley's statement was not gracious at all, but the best we could hope for from such a man.

Paisley offered no tribute, no condolences, no kind or charitable words - only talk of standing before God. One might say the same thing upon the passing of a villain. I don't think he deserves any particular praise for restraining himself and choosing not to call John Paul the antiChrist at this time.

(Still, I suppose it's an improvement from his response to a previous Papal death, when he said: ``Tonight old Red Socks is in hell''.)

I'm not much of a one for prayer, but I have prayed for the soul of one of the genuinely extraordinary people of our time. Leaders and people the world over - of all faiths and of none - have recognised that. Those who don't are small indeed.

Davros,
You say,
"Certain agencies", but the point I made was that the Pope, the head of the Church of Rome, held the view that contraception was wrong and should not be used under any circumstances.

This caused at least thousands of people to die as a result of having unprotected sex with an AIDS victim.

I take it you don't agree with this view?

Paisleyite
""Anti-Christ" means "in the place of Christ". I believe the Pope does indeed place himself in the role of Christ."

You can try to explain it away whatever way you like. It was a direct insult to the Pope, the Roman Catholic church and every Roman Catholic on the planet.

Ringo,
You say,
"Unwilling to give an inch on core values"...

Core values or not, this is still intransigence and narrow-mindedness.

As for me being brainwashed...you are just being plain ridiculous

"The anti-contraceptive stance of the Roman Church has led to thousands of deaths on the continent of Africa."
Nonsense. AIDS has led to those deaths - not the Catholic church. It's like blaming teetotallers for the increase in liver disease for not encouraging people to drink beer instead of spirits.

p.s. "Anti-Christ" means "in the place of Christ"

Antichrist is taken from the Greek αντιχριστος, antikhristos, and literally means instead of Christ.

HOWEVER, as mentioned in the New Testament anti-christ means the "enemy of christ", it's the "person on earth who will represent the powers of evil by opposing the Christ", "a person or other entity that is the embodiment of evil and utterly opposed to truth".

So you're saying Ias Paisley is correct??

For the Catholic Church, prohibition of contraceptives is a kind of theological condom.

Basically if you allow the use of contraceptives, you set a precedent that permits all manner of pan-sexual activity i.e. if sex can exist purely as gratification of the self or another, without any component of procreation, then why stop at heterosexual monogamy? Provided there is consent between all parties, all sexual activities could then be seen as a gift from God.

"As for me being brainwashed...you are just being plain ridiculous

Posted by: Concerned Loyalist at April 4, 2005 12:43 PM"

I agree completely, what would one use the soap on ?

No Seamus G, it is nothing like that. That is an astoundingly stupid comparison!

The Pope has an influence on the lives of the Roman Catholic people, whereas teetotallers have no influence whatsoever over drinkers!

CL
"This caused at least thousands of people to die as a result of having unprotected sex with an AIDS victim."

First you said millions. Now it's thousands, and still no evidence?

'Core values or not, this is still intransigence and narrow-mindedness.'

Oh, right, for a second there I thought we were talking about a religious figure.

I wonder, will you level the same criticism against the leader of the Free Presbyterian Church when he shuffles off this mortal coil. Sport on a Sunday, Indeed!!

shaypaul,
I prefer shower-gel actually over a bar of soap.

maca,
It is impossible to tell how many Roman Catholics have died from AIDS, and how many of these deaths could have been prevented by the Pope speaking out in favour of contraception, but I believe it could range anywhere between tens of thousands to a million.

The problem with figures is that they do not examine individual cases...for example one RC man could have listened to the Pope's advice, but a less sincere RC may have just ignored him.

The point is that we will never know how many people really perished, perhaps indirectly, at the hands of KAROL WOJTYLA. He never spoke out in favour of saving life so I believe he felt that people dying everywhere was less important than the use of contraception.

Do you see where I am coming from?

Compliments to Billy Pilgrim on his 12.34 post. I am still a bit sceptical about all the praise being lavished on the Pope in the media at the moment but that is a very fair point about his many abilities, both intellectual and otherwise and especially that he was consistently pro-life, NOT oh very so selectively pro-life like the current U.S. regime.

smcgiff,
After the nakedly sectarian remark,

"is Protestant intellect this bankrupt",

I don't feel I have to explain myself to you. If it was up to you the Church of Rome would go back to their old tried and tested method of burning Protestant "heretics" on a stake...shame on you!

CL,

As you've ignored my comments in response to the death’s of millions being the responsibility of the Pope, I very much expect you're right not to respond. Sorry if I’ve shown up your argument as simply a sectarian rant.

You yourself have stated. ‘…for example one RC man could have listened to the Pope's advice, but a less sincere RC may have just ignored him.’

However, you fail to grasp that the RC that ignored him when it came to promiscuity is equally likely to ignore him when it came to the use of contraceptives. Sub-Sahara Africa is rife with AIDs and other STD’s. The call for single relationships, does not only seem wise but fits with RC doctrine.

‘If it was up to you the Church of Rome would go back to their old tried and tested method of burning Protestant "heretics" on a stake...shame on you!’

If you look you might find Postman Pat is on the TV, that should keep you distracted long enough not to make such embarrassing posts as the above.

And, if you want me to jump on your band wagon, you’ll find that Protestants didn’t need RC’s to burn Protestants, they did a fine job of that themselves.

CL
"He never spoke out in favour of saving life"

This is complete rubbish. He has often spoke of saving life.

Billy Pilgrim wrote, quote: "Now is a time for those who want to mourn the Pope to do so - and for the rest to respect that." No. Not if it means silence or genuflection. Why? Isn't that just a variant of "Don't speak ill of the dead"? A notion no one truly believes. Richard Nixon was a liar and and a crook who violated the American Constitution, and he didn't stop being a liar and lawbreaker when he died. When Ronald Reagan shook off his mortal coils, the shame and disgrace of his going to an SS cemetery to honor the dead did not disappear, and the American press reminded the world of it again and again. When Tony Blair dies, the headline will be "sexing up the documents". So why should Karol Wojtyla not be subject to critical judgement this very moment?

I am sick of this thread - it has just degenerated into Roman Catholic against Protestant due to a few sectarian individuals.

Your Pope's not even in his grave and you feel it is more important to out-score Proddys than it is to talk about what his Popery was really like and how the world will remember him!

"So why should Karol Wojtyla not be subject to critical judgement this very moment?"

Because this very moment is a time of grieving for many people and out of respect for your fellow christains (my assumption) at least wait until he is burried before ripping him to shreds.

CL
"I am sick of this thread - it has just degenerated into Roman Catholic against Protestant due to a few sectarian individuals."

You're joking right? Who was it that posted at 10:24am, the first post of the day which attacked the Pope?

'So why should Karol Wojtyla not be subject to critical judgement this very moment?'

The fact that the vast majority of your fellow Christians understand is quite satisfactory in my book.

I'm mightily impressed that there were not a lot more ready to dance on his grave.

*Waves bye bye to Concerned Loyalist*

Anyone for lunch?

"..it was up to you the Church of Rome would go back to their old tried and tested method of burning Protestant "heretics" on a stake...shame on you!"

Concerbed Loyalist

Maybe you prefer the traditional protestant method of hanging catholics, mutilating them, burning and then sticking whatever was left on spike as a warning to other catholics not to be catholics.

I note the pope was advised not to come north during his visit to Ireland. Not surprising condidering the brainwashed sectarian attitudes of people like you?

Are you for real, or an agent provocateur?

smcgiff,
Good riddance. You are the single most bigoted and sectarian poster I have ever come across on Slugger - even worse than the likes of "barney" and "pat mclarnon" which is saying something!

Concerned Loyalist

Are you a nationalist trying to make protestants look bad?

Concerned Loyalist,


Sorry to play the man and not the ball, but I enjoy reading informed debate on this site not sectarian nonsense. Come back to the thread when you have something constructive to add.

CL
"You are the single most bigoted and sectarian poster I have ever come across on Slugger"

Fair go CL, Séamus bigoted and sectarian?? Not a chance.

Lay off the personal attacks, we can have a discussion/argument without them.

"Seamus bigoted and sectarian???",

I am speaking from personal experience on Slugger and do not know the man but that is what came across

CL
I'm quite surprised as I believe the man to be the exact opposite. A Cork langer maybe, but not bigoted! ;)

marty,
I am not sectarian and have plenty of Roman Catholics so I'm offended at that jibe to be honest

IMO he is sectarian but you are entitled to your own opinion

'A Cork langer maybe, but not bigoted!'

Sniff, at least someone understands me! :-)

Apologies to all if I was duped into an argument pushing a hidden agenda.

In my defence, I felt more moved at John Paul II’s passing than I can effectively explain why.

""Infalliable on matters of doctine of faith"

Not in my opinion"

That would class you as a heretic ;)

Seamus mate, you have nothing to apologise for, you are the one who has been wronged here. I dare say you, like everybody else, have a few prejudices tucked away, but if everybody had your degree of sectarianism then Northern Ireland would be one hell of a lot better a place.

With the way this thread's turning out I think I'll stick to good old tried and tested lapsed Catholic-tinged agnosticism. Do agnostics go to hell as well lads? :-)

CL,


apologies if you're offended, but when you come off with all the "one faith, one crown" stuff it's hard not to extract any other conclusions.



Cheers.

"Paisleyite
"An open-minded sort of a fellow aren't we?"

Pretty much actually. Just that's there's some people not worth listening to, especially when they have spent 30 odd years insulting me, my country, my language and my religion."

You might therefore be interested to learn that at the recent Easter Convention on the Ravenhill Rd there was an ex-Catholic gardai giving his testimoney, a minister from Cork and another minister from the West of Ireland who is forming the Irish Gospel Mission Hall. Also heard the testimony of a Catholic girl who converted along with her dying father only to be shunned by the family and also a project smuggling Chinese language bibles into China and missionary work in Kenya.

"Remember this is the man who yelled "I denounce you. Anti-Christ" to the Pope. And you think I should take anything he has to say seriously?
Paisleyite
""Anti-Christ" means "in the place of Christ". I believe the Pope does indeed place himself in the role of Christ."
You can try to explain it away whatever way you like. It was a direct insult to the Pope, the Roman Catholic church and every Roman Catholic on the planet"

Actually it was the papacy he was refering to. Paisley saying such things is hardly new thinking..it has been said by most of the major reformers since the 1500,s and is indeed in the foreword of the King James Bible.

The thing you need to understand about that is that it is entirely possible to be a good person and do good works but not go to heaven. Alot of people seem to think the bible says that you are judged by good who weighs up your sins against your good deeds....however scriptures actually say that salvation is through grace and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ ALONE. The very devil believes in Jesus that in itself is not enough.

Lack of compassion? Only the brainwashed could sum up the 26 years as Pope with such a statement.

Well said, Ringo.

I'll tell you something now as a practising Protestant, the Pope's actions were much, much nearer those you'd expect from a man of God than Paisley's.

As for the bile from CL and the like... Slugger is for informed debate on the issues, if you're not interested in that, take your disrespectful, hate-filled claptrap elsewhere.

Thats all I have to say on the matter at this time. A person is dead and no matter who they are or what their beliefs that is to be respected.

Concerned Loyalist - you might want to take a listen to last nights sermon (www. sermonaudio.com )in Magherafelt Free P church on idols. The man comes from Broughshane and he gives his testimony on how he was involved in the loyalist band scene in his youth and how his faith has led him away from such idols in his life.

Er, thanks, Davros... I think. ;-)

SMcGiff wrote, quote: "The fact that the vast majority of your fellow Christians understand is quite satisfactory in my book." Then I suppose when Myra Hindley died, SMcGiff crossed himself, said, "God bless her soul" and abandoned his critical thinking skills, good judgement and tongue as an act of charity and good will to one of the country's worst killers. Why do that for any man, of whatever reputation?

Alan

Maybe you can help me out on something I have never understood? If Calvinists believe in predestination (and therefore, what they do, or do not do on earth will be irrelevant in the next life) then why are they known for their austerity? If ever a group of people should be partying like its 1999, surely it should be they?

Ahh...meat....
Pre destination is acceptance of the sovereignty of God - that God knows everything that was, is and will be, that God is infinite, eternal and all powerful and therefore knows already who will be saved and who will not (which is quite frightening really). With regards to your question - you are saved through grace (justification, sanctification etc) when the holy spirit infills you and you accept Jesus Christ as your saviour. In my church atleast being "saved" is instantaneous although you then "grow with the Lord" and can also "backslide" but once saved always saved whereas other believe you can become "unsaved" again. You are still however a sinner BUT the main difference is that you KNOW you are. And you will be burdened for souls and to do good works in the name of the Lord to lead by example etc...so while it is certainly something to be rejoicing in salvation it is also very very sad to see those outside salvation.....and that does not mean a single denomination is the right one but rather that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ ALONE. Hope this helps

Alan

``Pre destination is acceptance of the sovereignty of God - that God knows everything that was, is and will be, that God is infinite, eternal and all powerful and therefore knows already who will be saved and who will not (which is quite frightening really).''

This is very interesting. Catholics believe in the sovereignty and infinity and omniscience and omnipresence of God too - but also that he is a just God. I'm sure all Christians - indeed all who believe in God - believe that too.

``With regards to your question - you are saved through grace (justification, sanctification etc) when the holy spirit infills you and you accept Jesus Christ as your saviour.''

Catholics too believe in salvation through Christ, though not predestination.

Do you see my point though? If salvation or damnation is pre-ordained, then it doesn't make any difference how you live - BUT Calvinists, who do believe this, often live particularly exemplary lives. It seems an interesting paradox - not of theology, perhaps more of sociology - that some of the most austere Christians are the very ones whose reading of scripture gives them the freedom to live with most abandon.

``In my church atleast being "saved" is instantaneous although you then "grow with the Lord" and can also "backslide" but once saved always saved whereas other believe you can become "unsaved" again.''

I have never understood the `saved' thing, though I have read testimonies of Christians who have spoken of the moment they became saved. How do you know when you are saved?

``You are still however a sinner BUT the main difference is that you KNOW you are.''

Let me assure you, all Catholics know this one only too well. Whatever else about the Catholic church, it has the whole sinner thing down...

``And you will be burdened for souls and to do good works in the name of the Lord to lead by example etc...so while it is certainly something to be rejoicing in salvation it is also very very sad to see those outside salvation.....and that does not mean a single denomination is the right one but rather that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ ALONE. Hope this helps''

Thanks Alan.

Alan2

Excellently summarised. Well done.

When I talk to resolutely materialist and unreligious people I often wish they would think a little bit more about the big questions of existence and death etc. But when I hear people talk who are convinced that they are 'saved', that theirs is the true faith, be it Catholic, Protestant, Moslem or whatever, I get very uneasy. Basically I think I prefer shallow materialists to the religious fundies out there. They tend to be less dangerous...
Is this all going a bit off-topic?

"I have never understood the `saved' thing, though I have read testimonies of Christians who have spoken of the moment they became saved. How do you know when you are saved?"

You just know. It is life changing. Its not like hearing voices or anything but just a complete change of heart and outlook, a "feeling". I have heard testimonies of complete and utter drunkards and druggies being saved at missions and they just change their lives utterly and live for God.

Read the first verses of John 3 here

Alan2
"Paisley saying such things is hardly new thinking..it has been said by most of the major reformers since the 1500,s and is indeed in the foreword of the King James Bible."

So does that excuse his comment & behaviour?

"The thing you need to understand about that is that it is entirely possible to be a good person and do good works but not go to heaven."

Not in my book. I'm of the belief that good people to go heaven, simple as that.

"So does that excuse his comment & behaviour?"

I`m not excusing him. In fact I agree with that anaylsis as does every major Protestant Church including the Church Of Ireland`s confession of faith.

"The thing you need to understand about that is that it is entirely possible to be a good person and do good works but not go to heaven."

Not in my book. I'm of the belief that good people to go heaven, simple as that.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but can I ask on what you base that opinion?

Ephesians 2:8-10
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained [2] that we should walk in them.

Romans 9:32
Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)

As we are quoting, Alan2, could you tell me while one person in the world is starving why any of us in the western world can go to heaven?

Alan2
"Everyone is entitled to their opinion but can I ask on what you base that opinion?"

Nothing in black and white such as scriptures for example. Just the way I have formed my own beliefs which I felt was necessary (I have serious doubts about the bible) to maintain my faith, if that makes sense? ;)

'Romans 9:32
Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;'

I think the official answer to my next question is ‘Tough Du Du’, but I’ll ask it anyway,

This would mean those that could not possibly have heard of Christ, lets say, aborigines living 500 years ago, could not go to heaven. This makes life meaningless and completely oversimplifies God’s plan and it assumes God cares for man unequally.

The problem with Doctrine is that it catches itself out - such as:

God is omnipotent, therefore God knows everything. That means there is predestination by definition. That means man’s freewill is meaningless. Which means the whole thing can only be that the Earth is a complicated soap opera for a bored superior being.

Alan2, I can only stand in wonder at how anyone can have faith. I’m the poorer one.

"I can only stand in wonder at how anyone can have faith. I’m the poorer one"

I think that is why I have essentially formed my own simple beliefs. I think it's about blind faith, choose to believe and don't question it or question it and risk discovering that it's is a sham.

There's too many open questions, and as an scientist/engineer I can't accept that ;)

'question it and risk discovering that it's is a sham.'

DOH! Now they tell me!!!! ;-)

Look at it the other way. No predestination...god does not know everything or what is going to happen. He is not therefore all powerful..so that means that it should be possible for men to become as God right?

The other explanation is that we are just a chance coming together of chemicals which exploded out of nothingness or perhaps a very very small area of mass spinning very fast that contained an entire universe worth of materials. Of course this actually goes against the laws of thermo dynamics since it is impossible to actualluy create energy and also goes against angular momentum as even when things fly off or explode on something that is spinning they retain that spinning yet many many planets spin counter clockwise.

"DOH! Now they tell me!!!!"

;)Of course I don't know for sure since I haven't taken that risk ;)

And no offence intended to those who do actually believe...

Actually if we go the science route it does pose the very interesting question, where did it all begin? I mean long before the big bang, long before those elements met in deep space, back to the birth of the very first particle ... wrap your minds around that one.

"God is omnipotent, therefore God knows everything".

Poor logic, abysmal syllogism.

That God can know everything means that God must know everything?

Who are we to deny God the choice of not knowing what he could know?

‘Look at it the other way.’
I believe 100% in predestination (although from a scientific POV), so I’m with you up to that point. It’s after that it gets sticky…
‘The other explanation is that…’
But it’s not the only explanation, there’s my God loves a Soap Opera explanation, which may be ridiculous at least its more honest than to think of a God that thinks anyone not hearing the word of Christ are acceptable losses.

smcgiff
"I believe 100% in predestination..."

For some reason i'm of the opinion that the next second is unwritten, that each new second means a gazillion different outcomes ...

'Who are we to deny God the choice of not knowing what he could know?'

You mean, your God's in denial? What, he likes to be kept in suspense? I thought he'd be above all that.

Your God is not omnipotent, because you're suggesting, 'He can't handle the truth!'.

More importantly, WHY would knowing or not knowing make a difference to a perfect, omnipotent God.

Stay behind in class, Visitor.

Alan2
I wish you knew yourself as much as you know the bible chapter and verse.
we can all quote that bollocks.
The point is we all need to look in the mirror!

smcgiff,

"WHY would knowing or not knowing make a difference to a perfect, omnipotent God".

Maybe because, as ensouled creatures, God really does want us to have free will and a choice between joining him in heaven by, among other things, living righteous lives.

Maybe we are more than soulless angels, creatures which God can apparently work up in the blink of an eye.

Maybe, in this free-will respect, we really are created in God's image.

"Stay behind in class, Visitor." No, smcgiff, the problem may well be in your own lack of imagination.

Alan

``Look at it the other way. No predestination...god does not know everything or what is going to happen. He is not therefore all powerful..so that means that it should be possible for men to become as God right?''

I believe God loves us, he wants us to be happy and he wants us all to be saved. I believe in hell but I don't necessarily believe anyone has ever gone there. I believe God knows the outcome of our lives and our fates, but not that he predetermines them. He doesn't save or damn us, but he could if he chose to, and he knows before we are even born which of us will save ourselves, and which of us won't.

That's not predestination though. That way God gives us all a chance, and is still all-knowing and all-powerful. But he is sparing and merciful and on our side. That's my guy.

'No, smcgiff, the problem may well be in your own lack of imagination.'

Have a heart, Visitor. Pity the poor Atheist, who has to defend his stance, not against religion, but a multitude of faiths. Those that believe in divine pre-destination and those that don't. Those that open their egg at the tip and those at the base.

It's less a lack of imagination, more like which religious doctrine will I be asked to question next.

I do note though, that it was me, a non-believer, you questioned over predestination and not your fellow Christian. Is this union solidarity?

smcgiff,

"I do note though, that it was me, a non-believer, you questioned over predestination and not your fellow Christian. Is this union solidarity?"

Not at all. If someone says he believes in predestination, it's just a statement of subjective fact (it doesn't go to whether the belief is well-founded). Besides, I didn't read the others all that closely on that point (from reading some of your other postings, I reckoned you'd do better).

Your approach on predestination tried, by contrast, to use logic to establish the point, and I thought your logic wrong (and I was right).

Nonetheless, at your request, please do accept my pity regarding that argument (which, in truth, I did find pitifully in error).

If you're not predestined to fail to do better on your next attempt, I'll look forward to reading it.

'For some reason i'm of the opinion that the next second is unwritten, that each new second means a gazillion different outcomes ...'

It's a little like this.

Say we’re watching a video of Ireland Vs England in Stuttgart, 1988 ;-), then Houghton will head the ball into the net every time we play it. Likewise, if we could go back in time (impossible) and view the game and not affect a single factor (impossible), then Houghton would again score the goal. He would score because every single atom/action/thought/sense would be in place to make him score that goal. The very same is true of an instant in 10,000 or a million years time. We are all victims of action and reaction and our destiny was set at the moment of creation (big bang/God – take your pick). For example, a reunification or not of Ireland is set in destiny.

I believe if you had a powerful enough computer and could program all the variables action/reactions in the world into this Dell PC (due for production in 20022005 AD) you could predict the future.

'If you're not predestined to fail to do better on your next attempt, I'll look forward to reading it.'

At least you've a sense of humour, which means you get a C+ for effort, but...

'Your approach on predestination tried, by contrast, to use logic to establish the point, and I thought your logic wrong (and I was right).'

I wasn't any more wrong than you, I picked holes in your argument. Your 'Maybe' argument doesn't cut it. Maybe God really does like a good Soap Opera, eh?

smcgiff,

"I picked holes in your argument"? Such as: "You mean, your God's in denial? What, he likes to be kept in suspense?"?? No, that's not picking holes. The "in denial" point was kind of silly (I said we should not deny something, not that he was in denial (which, in this context, means knowing something but pretending not to know it)).

"Likes to be kept in suspense"? Maybe he does, maybe not, maybe it's just part of the price he elected to pay in this "free will for ensouled beings" adventure.

After all, what's the fun in a soap opera if you know all the results?

You may not be wrong on predestination existing, but your attempt at establishing it with logic failed. Thus, you are more wrong than I am.

Glad, though, you discerned the attempt at humour.

(which, in this context, means knowing something but pretending not to know it)).

Hey, I'm getting to like your God. He likes to pretend? Do you think I can look forward to charades in the after life?

'maybe it's just part of the price he elected to pay in this "free will for ensouled beings" adventure.'

Whether or not God allows himself to know or not doesn't remove the fact that predestination occurs. God would only be fooling himself. Us poor mortals would have our faiths sealed regardless of who knew.

The only difference is that God gets to take off the Blindfold eventually and go, 'ah, yeah, I knew he was going to go to hell. You could tell by the end of Act 1'.

'After all, what's the fun in a soap opera if you know all the results?'

Why do I get the impression I'm being wound up for a second time today on this thread! :-(

Of course maybe you're all wrong and there is no God. Maybe you're all just figments of my imagination, in which case I really ought to lay off the wine gums...


smcgiff
"It's a little like this..."
Interesting theory grasshopper ;)
Not sure I buy it but it's as good a theory as anything.

'Of course maybe you're all wrong and there is no God. Maybe you're all just figments of my imagination, in which case I really ought to lay off the wine gums...'

*hick* Sorry to break it to you, but, if anything, you're a figment of my imag.. imagingg... mind, *hick*

smcgiff,

"Hey, I'm getting to like your God. He likes to pretend? Do you think I can look forward to charades in the after life?"

Hey, mcgiff, that's not what I said or what I have been saying. Read again. I think that our omnipotent God could know all but chooses not to know all in order that we might indeed have free will.

"Whether or not God allows himself to know or not doesn't remove the fact that predestination occurs". "The fact"? What "fact"? You mean "the fact" which you merely assert to be a "fact"?

How about splitting the difference? How about: some people are predestined to make erroneous and unsupported arguments and some people have the free will to point out those errors?

"The fact"? What "fact"? You mean "the fact" which you merely assert to be a "fact"?

I'm glad you brought this up. There is no proof God exists. Fact. QED.

smcgiff,

"There is no proof God exists."

Gee, is that why we describe religions as systems of belief? Thanks much for the further insight.

In fairness, maybe the fates have decreed that you do no better.

'Gee, is that why we describe religions as systems of belief? Thanks much for the further insight.'

A thousand apologies, I thought you were knocking my arguments because you questioned their factuality.

The religious are not alone in being able to put forward arguments. You can knock mine, while being able to sit back and play the, 'Hey, I believe, man.' card.

They’ve been doing that for thousands of years. I was kind of hoping you had more than that tired expression to offer. Not for the first time this evening you’ve disappointed me.

There is a theory, which will be anathema to believers but which I quite like:
The Universe is because it is, no more, no less. It is in a constant process of recreating itself, through Big Bangs and Big Crunches and what have you. This is an infinite cycle and every now and then the conditions for self-conscious life are created like now- basically meaning that us being here really is just a product of chance.
I had a teacher at school who used to say that God must exist because how else could you explain the majesty behind music like that of Beethoven, or someone like that. I never quite got the logic of that.
I'd turn it round and say he/she/ doesn't exist-how else you can explain the existence of a song like:
'I'm a Barbie girl in a Barbie World'
I'd better go. It's time for my medication again...

"some people are predestined to make erroneous and unsupported arguments and some people have the free will to point out those errors?"

...or you're predestined to point out those errors, if they are errors at all...

'I'm a Barbie girl in a Barbie World'

That's not proof God doesn't exist. That's proof the devil exists!!! ;-)

Now, after me, life is plastic, so fantastic... !

FC
"The Universe is because it is, no more, no less. It is in a constant process of recreating itself, through Big Bangs and Big Crunches and what have you...."

Question: where did it start?


C'mon barbie, let's go party!

smcgiff,

If you try to apply logic to a system of belief, try doing it correctly.

"God is omnipotent, therefore God knows everything" is, once again, poor logic ... that "conclusion" simply does not inevitably follow, for the reasons I have suggested in this thread.

This criticism does not turn on whether one believes or does not believe in God. It turns on whether one is able to follow a logical thought process and whether one is able to admit the truth of a logical analysis. Which one of those abilities is proving the difficulty here?

As I said, if God is omnipotent, God knows everything. Which part of ALL-KNOWING don't you understand?

smcgiff:

You're apparently confusing the words "omnipotent" and "omniscient".

If you're trying to tell us "God is omniscient, therefore God knows everything," you're not telling us very much.

Maca:
Questions:

1) What is the sound of one hand clapping?

2) What was your original face before your parents were born?

3) Is Foreign Correspondent recycling zen koans in a mock attempt at profundity because he can't think of any good answer to your question?

4) Does Visitor need to lighten up?

5) Has this thread now moved about 100 light years away from its starting point?

I have many questions, but precious few answers :-)

You're boring me now.

How can one be all powerful and not know everything? i.e. Power over all knowledge?

smcgiff,

"How can one be all powerful and not know everything?"

I have the full power to hold my chair up in the air, yet it rests on the floor. How can that be?

The answer: because, though I have the power to hold my chair up in the air, I choose, of my own free will, not to do so at this moment.

How can God be all-powerful yet not know details the future of man? Because he chooses not to know them such they might actually have the free will to take decisions for themselves.

smcgiff, if this bores you, it may be because logic really ain't your bag.

'they might actually have the free will to take decisions for themselves.'

God's knowledge and man's freewill have nothing to do with each other. I thought I covered this before.

'The answer: because, though I have the power to hold my chair up in the air, I choose, of my own free will, not to do so at this moment.'

Eh, and that explains what exactly?

'smcgiff, if this bores you, it may be because logic really ain't your bag.'

It's not that I'm not bored, although this will probably be my last post of the evening, I just hate to leave you uneducated. I fear I have failed.

smcgiff:

Don't worry, you have taught me something.

Thanks, but I'll resist. ;-)

1) What is the sound of one hand clapping?

This, listen ...

2) What was your original face before your parents were born?

There was no me so no face...

3) Is Foreign Correspondent recycling zen koans in a mock attempt at profundity because he can't think of any good answer to your question?

I have my suspicions... ;)

4) Does Visitor need to lighten up?

Might be no harm...

5) Has this thread now moved about 100 light years away from its starting point?

Pretty much a normal slugger thread then...

"There's too many open questions, and as an scientist/engineer I can't accept that ;)"

Maca - Science has many open questions and theories

Billy Pilgrim -
"That's not predestination though." I would say there is very little difference. There is no real way of knowing but the point is ..God KNOWS already.

FC -
"It is in a constant process of recreating itself, through Big Bangs and Big Crunches"

Really? Then where did the initial material come from and where did the energy come from for the "big bang" because the law of thermodynamics clearly states that you cannot create energy but that is changes from one type of energy to another?

john paul beatified the cleric in charge of the murder of at least 700'000 helpless serbs , one cardinal pavelic as respected journalist avro manhattan points out ( see his web site). this has got to be at least a bad mistake .

That sounds like total bullshit to me Ken. I presume you can back that up somehow?

Maca - I think "Ken Hood" might have confused Pavelic with Archbishop then Cardinal Stepinac who was beatified by John paul II, whose endorsement of the Utashe regime is a terrible blot on the Church, especially as The Church has yet to apologise for it's involvement with crimes against the various non RC groups in Croatia.

sugar - can a Mod. correct - only the "Was" was supposed to be in bold. Ta.