Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Dawkins and Williams


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 697 posts in this discussion
Posted on 14 Jun 2012 16:31:23 BDT
Sorry the link does not work; Google Catholic News Agency Associatee Press guilty of bad journalism in Oaklands abuse case and you will find it.

Posted on 14 Jun 2012 15:29:08 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Your link does not work!
your assertion that it is not true is a bit hollow- another link.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/04/10/judge-calls-prosecution-pope-benedict/

Posted on 14 Jun 2012 14:41:14 BDT
CA _ I have been through this one with you before, but perhaps you have missed my posting. It has been compredensively refuted-- the priest had already been arrested, and the discussion was about whether he be unfrocked as they call it. There is some evidence that unfrocked priests are more likely to offend since no longer in the care of the bishop. This priest did not reoffend in fact till he was defrocked, 2 years after this letter. See www.catholicnewsagency.com/.../ap_guilty_of_bad_journalism_in_oakland_ abuse_reporting_says_ignatius_press_founder

Posted on 11 Jun 2012 16:16:31 BDT
C. A. Small says:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world/europe/10pope.html?_r=1&hp

No, this is very clear and the letter is signed by Ratzinger.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jun 2012 15:12:35 BDT
CA-- this doesn't come up I,m afraid, but I think you will find that the last website I sent you contradicts the facts here eg the priest was already arrested/ Cardinal Ratzinger delayed on laicizing him, but he already out of all priestly work. This article is a repeat of the previous one you sent.

Posted on 8 Jun 2012 11:58:22 BDT
C. A. Small says:
TW- I have posted you another link- anything wrong with this one?

Posted on 7 Jun 2012 22:19:37 BDT
Spin says:
Who do Christians follow? Jesus, God or a self-appointed spokesman for the "Divine"?

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Jun 2012 16:27:10 BDT
C. A. Small says:
really?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world/europe/10pope.html?_r=2&hp

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Jun 2012 16:16:13 BDT
It was CA a completely nonsensical claim that you made about a Pope's letter which proved not to exist but to be a from a Cardinal (no, not the future pope) and from a totally unreliable website which badmouths Rome and the present and past Popes for being heretical for nor being anti-semitic among other things.

Posted on 4 Jun 2012 22:14:41 BDT
C. A. Small says:
It was not a wild goose chase- you just do not like the truth.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jun 2012 19:12:24 BDT
Spin says:
T; The wedding in Canaan. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink,..=)

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jun 2012 18:06:40 BDT
Jim Guest says:
The flames lick higher.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jun 2012 18:05:26 BDT
CA, I have replied above-- I cannot post every day I,m afraid, but I am going to look now. I shall be cross however if this is one I have already dealt with, and I note you have not apologised for the last wild goose chase you sent me on.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jun 2012 18:02:39 BDT
Last edited by the author on 4 Jun 2012 18:03:20 BDT
You were the one that said that Jesus had no family. I believe in Jesus having brothers, and James is recorded by Josephus. Paul recounts James the brother of Jesus as one of the witnesses. The NT mentions a whole variety of others. I doubt if they counted the 500-- it is a generic large number, and I,m sure they did not go round collecting names in an oral society where only 10% of the population were literate. (PS don't keep using the word 'handwaving' in every post:it isn't an argument)

Posted on 3 Jun 2012 23:06:16 BDT
Spin says:
Every species, every alternative view of life, be it animal or human, must, on pain of condemnation, agree with your perception of your life-experiences. Deny this and both bees, fish and humans are destined for an age of licking Satans anus...

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jun 2012 13:55:14 BDT
C. A. Small says:
TW- you appear to be ignoring either me or the link I posted showing the popes compliciting in covering child rape, have you followed the link you requested or not?

If not, why not?

If you have please state why you think the pope should not be proscecuted.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jun 2012 13:40:21 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 Jun 2012 13:41:42 BDT
AJ Murray says:
T. Woodman,

-"Rudeness again, but no facts..."

Not at all.

-"...you said Jesus had no family originally..."

No i did not.

-"...and I pointed out that the NT refers to the brothers of Jesus including James in several places."

You recall of this conversation is inaccurate.

-"This is certainly not the interpretation of my church, but there is plain letters in the NT. Look up brothers of Jesus ref on google."

The interpretation that James is not the brother of Jesus by relation is based upon the assumption of the perpetual virginity of Mary. A virginity that itself is based upon a corrupted translation.

If we are to suppose the Jesus had no sibling then why is Paul seeking authority for his position from James? Why does he describe him as 'the Lord's brother'? If this is to be interpreted as a more generic term of affiliation then why does both Mark and Matthew describe Jesus as the brother of James?

-"And the NT also refers to the names of various witnesses to the Resurrection in the clearest possible terms."

Yet Paul's recounts 500 anonymous witnesses. Which is what i was referring to, care to deal with that, or are we to witness more handwaving?

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2012 16:59:51 BDT
[And the NT also refers to the names of various witnesses to the Resurrection in the clearest possible terms.]- T Woodman.

And which of the bible writers saw him die?

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2012 16:47:47 BDT
C. A. Small says:
T.W. "This is certainly not the interpretation of my church, but there is plain letters in the NT" appropo nothing, which religion complied the NT?

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2012 15:38:00 BDT
Rudeness again, but no facts -- you said Jesus had no family originally, and I pointed out that the NT refers to the brothers of Jesus including James in several places. This is certainly not the interpretation of my church, but there is plain letters in the NT. Look up brothers of Jesus ref on google.
And the NT also refers to the names of various witnesses to the Resurrection in the clearest possible terms.

Posted on 28 May 2012 18:27:28 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 26 May 2012 15:48:54 BDT
AJ Murray says:
T.Woodman,

-"30 years after events in a largely non-literary society does not appear to me to be 'much after' them."

30-70 years, and it is when compared with other religions with more contemporary origins.

-"On 'brother' of Jesus: here you are simply incorrect. The NT in several places refers to 'the brothers of Jesus', and James is so-called. Use a concordance or google."

That would be the official interpretation of *your* particular church, historians regard Paul's use of James to bolster his own credentials as referring to his kinship with Jesus.

-"People do not usually invent totally counter-cultural ideas about a leader they wish others to follow.."

Demonstrably untrue, the rebel figure has long been a mainstay of storytelling and myth.

-"...and I was not referring to miraculous events."

Invented events don't have to be miraculous, but merely invented, and they occur all the time.

-"'Impact' depends on what kind of impact. As Stanton says, 'what is the fire that produces this smoke'."

And the more mundane explanation is that people were drawn to these communities because they offered a better way of life, material rewards, much as other religions have replaced older religions. None of which lends credibility to the fantastic elements.

-"Where did the get the idea that the witnesses in the NT were anomymous? Again, this is simply not the case."

As usual your weak apologetics consist of saying Nuh-uh!
I was actually referring to the 500 witnesses that is mantioned by Paul, ALL of which are anonymous. Are you now saying that you have their names?

Posted on 23 May 2012 17:31:37 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 21 May 2012 14:39:24 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Then provide a link to it so it can be checked!

In reply to an earlier post on 21 May 2012 14:28:31 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 May 2012 14:30:28 BDT
You were the one who asked for medical evidence. The man had travelled with his consultant who also spoke. There is plenty of other medical evidence too, but when it is cited you just pooh pooh it, because you want to protect your own world view based on old books by Hitchens and Dawkins.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 28 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  32
Total posts:  697
Initial post:  29 Feb 2012
Latest post:  14 Jun 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions