The Pope/Vatican being offensive to other peoples religious beliefs

Thanks SaxonRider

If you said ‘That helmet makes you look like a right *&#@ & *#@’ and then started encouraging people to point and laugh at me, I probably wouldn’t be terribly amused.

I think talking about one of the biggest religions in the world and indirectly comparing it to Harry Potter falls into the latter category. As would comparing atheists to Nazis, although that was a different popernator.

Nonsense, he’s not poking fun at Hinduism, nor is he encouraging anyone else to. He is a monotheist and believes in the ‘one true God’. To him, anything that takes attention away from that god must originate from that god’s enemy.

Nonsense, he’s not poking fun at Hinduism, nor is he encouraging anyone else to. He is a monotheist and believes in the ‘one true God’. To him, anything that takes attention away from that god must originate from that god’s enemy.

So only theists are allowed to criticize other theists then? Using Harry Potter in the same sentence as their religion is showing respect for hundreds of millions of Hindus? Harry Potter, a literary work of fiction and the supposed truth that Hindu’s hold close to them? That shows respect? Hahah, right…..that’s a disguised jab if I ever saw one.

Not that I actually believe anyone’s faith deserves any kind of respect though.

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=4269

It’s old, but does this smack of respect for other peoples religious beliefs?

You’re going to dismiss almost all of humanity with a monumentally ludicriously poorly informend statement that is about as sweeping as it is possible to be?

Objection!

A while back BBC presented a documentary about the history of Christianity, where archeology or historian whoever they were, rationalised the fact that although Jesus was born a Jew he founded Christianity but there was a period of Jesus life that was not recorded. Apparently, according to the documentary, Jesus was in Afghanistan gaining his knowledge or learning … then went back to preach in middle east somewhere there etc but was later nailed to the cross by Romans due to some backstabbers hatred of him. When his body was brought down and put in the cave he was apparently saved by someone … long story short … Jesus went back to Afghanistan and remained there until his actual death.

The documentary in way was saying that Jesus learned/gained his knowledge from the far east and if he was in Afghanistan chances was that he learned from the local religion there but put a twist based on his own interpretation i.e. he could be learning from the Buddhists, Jain or even Hindus.

There you go … a bit of documentary from BBC.

I am very happy to be reminded that the Vatican has a Chief Exorcist. I often forget that the entire set-up is like a cross between the Da Vinci code and The Thick of It, but with more Latin.

🙂

bwaarp please improve the quality of your trolling – it’s getting a bit desperate.

It is hilarious/ridiculous that the Vatican has a chief exorcist though.

It is hilarious/ridiculous that the Vatican has a chief exorcist though.

Ah but you see, he’s an exorcist allegorically.

It’s entirely possible that his title is traditional, I’m sure there are plenty of other institutions where people hold titles because historically there’s always been someone in that position. Though I don’t really see why it’s any more hilarious / ridiculous than anything else the church claims.

I’ve just spotted that the article was published in 2010, so it’s hardly breaking news. Doesn’t seem to be anyone actually offended though, despite what the attention-grabbing headline claims.

I’m sure there are plenty of other institutions where people hold titles because historically there’s always been someone in that position.

May I be the first to mention The Royal Swan Uppers?

Honourable mentions going out to the Swan Uppers of the Vintners’ and Dyers’ livery companies also.

But there are definitely swans for them to up, even though it is utterly, comically pointless. So it’s a bad comparison unless the Exorcist actually does exorcisms….

🙂

Maybe it’s a typo and he makes sure all the bishops keep in shape by working out regularly?

he’s an exorcist allegorically.

Wooooah!!!! Cougar, we’d love to believe no-one does exorcisms because they aren’t batshit crazy, but he’s done over 50,000 according to Wikipedia. Unless his entire existence is an elaborate practical joke of some kind 😯

50,000?

He must be working like a man possessed.

I dunno, I’m not religious but even if I was a catholic I don’t think I’d take the Pope’s chief ghostbuster too seriously. Unless played by Ernie Hudson

Some Catholics definitely do believe in the power of exorcism, just last the year the archbishop of Burgos in Spain admitted he’d ordered a 17 year old girl be exorcised, the ritual was apparently carried out 13 times: http://www.elmundo.es/espana/2014/12/05/5481d26522601dc8548b456c.html

Given that an archbishop is a very senior role in the Catholic church (Pope -> Cardenal -> Archbishop) I think it’s fair to say the Pope does agree with exorcism, or at the very least permits it.

Apparently there are 15 priests in Spain authorised to carry out the practice:
http://www.elmundo.es/espana/2014/12/08/54849f91268e3e955a8b4585.html

I think it’s fair to say the Pope does agree with exorcism, or at the very least permits it.

Oh come on – those two things are HUGELY different!

Oh come on – those two things are HUGELY different!

I never said they weren’t. My point is that as a practice it’s definitely permitted within the church, and although not mainstream it’s not something completely unheard of.

Harry Potter’s not real?
Pfft, you guys!

Papal infallibility is misunderstood. It is exercised in very specific circumstances and, in relation to doctrinal matters, extremely rarely – twice in the last two hundred years.

but he’s done over 50,000

official exorcist in 1986 retired 2000, 50,000 in 14 years is >9 a day not including annual leave/bank holidays/2 grandmothers funerals p.a.
**** me, he’s a grafter.

Oh come on – those two things are HUGELY different!

so the head of a major organisation permits something he disagrees with? It’s a possibility I guess, but would a CEO allow something that he thought was bad for the organisation?
Ergo even if he disagrees with it he still thinks it’s a positive for the RC, still pretty dodgy ground to be on IMO

It’s a possibility I guess, but would a CEO allow something that he thought was bad for the organisation?

Not agreeing with something isn’t the same as thinking it’s bad for the organisation.

Most of the west think it’s mumbo jumbo, so ignore it anyway as per SaxonRider’s comments. Those places that don’t, well they get what they want – everyone’s happy. Seems shrewd to me.

Most of the west think it’s mumbo jumbo, so ignore it anyway as per SaxonRider’s comments. Those places that don’t, well they get what they want – everyone’s happy. Seems shrewd to me.

Except the girl in the case I linked to tried to commit suicide – perhaps unsurprisingly treating probable mental health issues with witchcraft isn’t always effective. Not to mention potentially illegal in Spain.

I said ‘most’. Feel free to remove the bit about the West. It was probably a bit racist anyway.

Not agreeing with something isn’t the same as thinking it’s bad for the organisation.

Like i said it doesn’t matter if he agrees or not, he permits it, therefore he can be seen to be condoning it for the “good” of the RC

Seems shrewd to me.

well yeah, but then catholics have to put up with Angry Atheists™ pointing out how silly/sinister it is

<and that the head honcho condones it>

**** me, he’s a grafter.

Probably why he does not pop up on here and comment 😉

well yeah, but then catholics have to put up with Angry Atheists™ pointing out how silly/sinister it is

Of course, but they have to put up with an awful lot of shite from Angry Atheists, so I expect they are pretty much immune to it.

Anyway – banning it would caues an awful lot of people to be very unhappy with their church. Now I’ve never done it, but I suspect that running a church (or even a parish) is more about keeping people happy than anything else!

Probably why he does not pop up on here and comment

that and the “generous” length of your average Catholic Ceremony/ritual, not to mention all the home work…As they say the Devil is in the detail.

This thread is a cracker, well done my favourite quote:

Do all catholics actually believe every off the cuff remark the Pope makes?

– Well the Pope is not prone to “off the cuff Remarks” – Prince Philip he is not (although the consequences of that would be hilarious/dire) yes RC do believe (or are supposed to) what the Pope actually says – which in this case he didn’t. Apparently.

Equally @Tom in damning the RC church for a senior cleric’s ramblings is cosying right up with the kind of comments that damn all of Islam due to the ramblings of a senior cleric – but in the defence of Islam, they at least don’t have an established hierarchy. It’s all bollox anyway, which is the most coherent comment I can make on this ^^

cosying right up with the kind of comments that damn all of Islam

not really, afaik there is barely any hierarchy within islam hence all the splinter radical groups who are ideologically well away from the mainstream. RC is complete opposite where those at the top of the pyramid make announcements/decisions that affect and speak for all of RC*, not really comparable.

*officially

but in the defence of Islam, they at least don’t have an established hierarchy

Yeah I know you pulled your punch slightly, but you still made the comparison.

Yeah I know you pulled your punch slightly, but you still made the comparison.

I agree with Donk – a mindless baboon could see this, including me.