anyone coming to see the pope

Status
Not open for further replies.
its not so much anti-christian but anti the amount of money it is costing when he is only a religious leader.

ladysue said:
I am not a Catholic but I am a Christian and I am offended by the anti Christian threads on this photography site sometimes. I thought that religion was a No no topic on TP. If not then it should be.
Click to expand...
 
Sorry, but religion isn't a positive thing - it's always been, and still is, one of the biggest causes of death on the planet in one way or another.
 
Well I shall break the mould with a completely apolitical/nonreligious answer.
I live in Edinburgh and Mr Pope is landing(literally) on us tomorrow. I start work qt about 1330 and I have no idea how I'm going to get in to town. Chances are I'll have to walk as the official route in is pretty close to my street and there will be no chance of a bus!
Personally I hope the ridiculous amount of disruption/security is worth it. Even Mrs Queen dosent get(or need) this level of mollycoddling!
Roll on Friday.
 
As an atheist in the UK I find the idea of my taxes being used to pay for this visit highly offensive. If Catholics want him here, then let the Catholic church foot the bill - oh and I wont be going.
 
Airscene said:
As an atheist in the UK I find the idea of my taxes being used to pay for this visit highly offensive. If Catholics want him here, then let the Catholic church foot the bill - oh and I wont be going.
Click to expand...


I'm not a Catholic, however I believe 4 million people in the UK are, so I don't see how the visit is any more controversial than that of any other Head of State.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I'm not a Catholic, however I believe 4 million people in the UK are, so I don't see how the visit is any more controversial than that of any other Head of State.
Click to expand...

So, just wondering, if 5 million people believed in church of the (flying) spaghetti monster- then it would be ok to use the money that the rest of us pay in taxes to pay for their visit?
 
I'm an atheist as well, but I thank God when its all over.
 
aligibbs said:
So, just wondering, if 5 million people believed in church of the (flying) spaghetti monster- then it would be ok to use the money that the rest of us pay in taxes to pay for their visit?
Click to expand...
Apparently, if 10,000 people list 'Jedi' under religion at the next population census, it will become official. I encourage thee, so the force shall once again be with us.

Yardbent said:
that was actually a polite statement to somewhat balance the negative statements made here
a pity you could not see that.....
FWIW ...non religious myself , but try not to comment on others beliefs
Click to expand...
That's ok. I'm just having fun.

Which brings me to the point of not being socially allowed to criticise religion. Anyone can tear (my or anyone's) research into pieces, bellow their viewpoint out to the public. At worst they would be humoured. When it comes down to irrational beliefs that's a big taboo area, for no reason.
 
i wont be going.. i dont follow the religion with possibly the bloodiest history and that has probably the most contempt for other religion/beliefs through the ages..

(google it..)
 
Last edited:
.
well so far traffic is less than expected.

live camera #5 view ...."link"

click on Hilton M8
 
lawrie29 said:
As a Catholic, I do kinda take offence at some of these comments, though not all.

I do think the pregnant nun adverts kicking about are wrong, the company would never do that to the Muslim/Jewish faiths, so why is catholicism any different?
Click to expand...

Because the Roman Catholic church isn't going to issue a fatwa or declare jihad, and this country seems to have adopted a stance that Muslims must be protected against any "offensive" speech or behaviour. Taking the mickey out of Judaism is a sensitive issue - since the Holocaust - and rather more difficult in any case.

FWIW, I'm neither Catholic nor Christian but I find the pregnant nun advertisement crass and offensive too. So are many of the posts on this thread.
 
Luke 10-19


I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.


so be careful all unbelieving scorpions and snakes:nono:


Merc
 
I was hoping he was going to be a true catholic and pull out at the last minute before he came.


The Guardian Letters page is interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/15/harsh-judgments-on-pope-religion


We, the undersigned, share the view that Pope Ratzinger should not be given the honour of a state visit to this country. We believe that the pope, as a citizen of Europe and the leader of a religion with many adherents in the UK, is of course free to enter and tour our country. However, as well as a religious leader, the pope is a head of state, and the state and organisation of which he is head has been responsible for:

Opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of Aids.

Promoting segregated education.

Denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women.

Opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation.

The state of which the pope is head has also resisted signing many major human rights treaties and has formed its own treaties ("concordats") with many states which negatively affect the human rights of citizens of those states. In any case, we reject the masquerading of the Holy See as a state and the pope as a head of state as merely a convenient fiction to amplify the international influence of the Vatican.

Stephen Fry, Professor Richard Dawkins, Professor Susan Blackmore, Terry Pratchett, Philip Pullman, Ed Byrne, Baroness Blackstone, Ken Follett, Professor AC Grayling, Stewart Lee, Baroness Massey, Claire Rayner, Adele Anderson, John Austin MP, Lord Avebury, Sian Berry, Professor Simon Blackburn, Sir David Blatherwick, Sir Tom Blundell, Dr Helena Cronin, Dylan Evans, Hermione Eyre, Lord Foulkes, Professor Chris French, Natalie Haynes, Johann Hari, Jon Holmes, Lord Hughes, Robin Ince, Dr Michael Irwin, Professor Steve Jones, Sir Harold Kroto, Professor John Lee, Zoe Margolis, Jonathan Meades, Sir Jonathan Miller, Diane Munday, Maryam Namazie, David Nobbs, Professor Richard Norman, Lord O'Neill, Simon Price, Paul Rose, Martin Rowson, Michael Rubenstein, Joan Smith, Dr Harry Stopes-Roe, Professor Raymond Tallis, Lord Taverne, Peter Tatchell, Baroness Turner, Professor Lord Wedderburn of Charlton QC FBA, Ann Marie Waters, Professor Wolpert, Jane Wynne Willson
 
What I dont get is why they (insert any relgion you like) feel they deserve to have power

We elect governments for that sort of thing

By a religion owning a corner of italy and calling it a state, they can do stuff like veto things at the UN etc..

If the god squad all want to wear dresses, and speak in latin and have thier own internal set of rules - fair enough. how people choose to waste thier lives away is up to them. The moment they feel that thier rules ought to apply to anyone else I feel they can go swing for it


What is the RC's church obsession with all things sex - no abortions, no contraception, celibacy, segregation of the sexes. To my mind they have spent centurys getting all tangled up with the "laws" and ignored what really maters to people. Perhaps it is a self preservation growth thing... each family produces 12 catholics instead of 2
 
Id like to request that any money I've paid in taxes is not used to fund this... Disgusting trip. Can you send all my money to Durex to buy some condoms for poor African Christians instead. Now thats a worthwhile cause.
 
Skyline On Fire said:
Id like to request that any money I've paid in taxes is not used to fund this... Disgusting trip. Can you send all my money to Durex to buy some condoms for poor African Christians instead. Now thats a worthwhile cause.
Click to expand...

Why should the free condoms only be given to African Christians? Are they more deserving than Africans who follow other faiths, or no faith at all?
 
aligibbs said:
So, just wondering, if 5 million people believed in church of the (flying) spaghetti monster- then it would be ok to use the money that the rest of us pay in taxes to pay for their visit?
Click to expand...

Yes, in the same way that smokers and drinkers expect to get their treatment for self-inflicted ailments paid for by the rest of us....
 
Self-inflicted or not, they are debilatating, cancerous, horrible, addictions that kill their host.
Quite a world apart. A huge world apart from believing in a bunch of stories.
 
Marcel said:
A huge world apart from believing in a bunch of stories.
Click to expand...

No backing for the Catholic church from here but 'stories' is a little bit ill-informed IMO. Sure most people today are secular and follow the lead of Richard Dawkins but that's not surprising as it's easier to avoid accountability to a Supreme Being, i.e. Almighty God.

Problem for the churches is that they long ago left the teaching of the bible for their own traditions and now they are reaping the result of their lack of faith in the lack of faith of people in general.

If anyone has an open mind, read (apart from the bible!) the book, "Who moved the stone" by Frank Morrison Available Here which gives an interesting insight to the 'story' of Jesus' resurrection. He set out to prove it a lie but was compelled by the evidence to pronounce it as true!

Sermon over!
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Yes, in the same way that smokers and drinkers expect to get their treatment for self-inflicted ailments paid for by the rest of us....
Click to expand...

Don't forget the obese and the promiscuous, who probably don't contribute as much to the exchequer as the smokers and boozers!
 
Why did it have to turn into a religion debate :shrug:
 
gramps said:
If anyone has an open mind, read (apart from the bible!) the book, "Who moved the stone" by Frank Morrison Available Here which gives an interesting insight to the 'story' of Jesus' resurrection. He set out to prove it a lie but was compelled by the evidence to pronounce it as true!

Sermon over!
Click to expand...

Not to pour cold water over you suggestion gramps, but I've come across books before (usually turning out to be evangelical publications I'll admit) that claim at the start to 'disprove' a supernatural theory and then somehow through the course of the book 'prove' it. But I will have a look at the said book when I get a chance, as I find religion fascinating - I'm an atheist. I have no doubt that Jesus existed it's well publicised, but son of god? perform on the spot miracles? far less likely.
 
Adam (ahem!) Frank Morrison was a journalist and a disbeliever, he just tells it like he found it. I don't know if he ever became a practicing Christian and for sure many evangelicals have pounced on his book as ammunition for their beliefs, however I found it a fascinating read which isolated many facts that are lost on many.
In my experience few people that dismiss God and the bible have ever really made a study of the bible to see what it really says, they simply assume that the churches represent God and that is where they immediately go wrong.
 
Cistron said:
Apparently, if 10,000 people list 'Jedi' under religion at the next population census, it will become official. I encourage thee, so the force shall once again be with us.
Click to expand...

Already done a few years ago and is on the official religions list :)

Flash In The Pan said:
Yes, in the same way that smokers and drinkers expect to get their treatment for self-inflicted ailments paid for by the rest of us....
Click to expand...

smokers and drinkers pay more for the NHS than they use which is why both are still legal they cant afford to ban them but personally i resent that my tax money pays for people to have children ;)
 
Toothie said:
smokers and drinkers pay more for the NHS than they use
Click to expand...

I'd like to see the evidence for that ... ever visited a busy A&E over the weekend? (That's not even mentioning police resources).
Then there are the vascular diseases, the coronary diseases, the respiratory diseases ... the list goes on.
 
I was hoping he was going to be a true catholic and pull out at the last minute before he came
Click to expand...

Judging by the congregation that attend the catholic church opposite my house that must be a very effective form of contraception
Not many with more than a couple of nippers, would have expected some larger families if they listened to the guvnor
 
Last edited:
Marcel said:
3 : He's just a man. He puts his pants on one leg at a time, just like the rest of us ;)
Click to expand...

Well seeing as he wears a long sleeved dress most of the time, how do you know he doesn't go commando?:)
 
gramps said:
I'd like to see the evidence for that ... ever visited a busy A&E over the weekend? (That's not even mentioning police resources).
Then there are the vascular diseases, the coronary diseases, the respiratory diseases ... the list goes on.
Click to expand...

So ... it's only smoking and drinking that cause such diseases ...
 
gramps said:
Adam (ahem!) Frank Morrison was a journalist and a disbeliever, he just tells it like he found it. I don't know if he ever became a practicing Christian and for sure many evangelicals have pounced on his book as ammunition for their beliefs, however I found it a fascinating read which isolated many facts that are lost on many.
In my experience few people that dismiss God and the bible have ever really made a study of the bible to see what it really says, they simply assume that the churches represent God and that is where they immediately go wrong.
Click to expand...

"Who Moved the Stone" is a fascinating book, but it doesn't really cite anything that wasn't already known. It's persuasive but not compelling, if you read it with an open mind.
 
gramps said:
I'd like to see the evidence for that ... ever visited a busy A&E over the weekend? (That's not even mentioning police resources).
Then there are the vascular diseases, the coronary diseases, the respiratory diseases ... the list goes on.
Click to expand...

The BBC quotes a Lancet article claiming 9.3bn GBP/year in tax revenue on tobacco. The cost to the NHS of smoking-related diseases put at 1.5bn GBP.

And on the original topic... I wouldn't go to the end of the street to see *any* religious leader.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top