Baadaasss popes

3 12 2008

From Something Awful, the 6 Most Awful Popes. Pedophiles, purse-cutters and pimp daddies. One pope even had a corpse dug up and put on trial. Catholicism for the win!

Via commenter Luke at Pharyngula.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

12 responses

4 12 2008
ozatheist

I always thought the Pope spoke the infallible word of god?
So god says it’s OK to rape, torture and murder. But wait there’s a clause (there’s always a clause):

Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible

from the catholic encyclopedia – infallibility

4 12 2008
AV

So god says it’s OK to rape,

Check.

torture

Check.

and murder.

Check.

But you didn’t need a pope to tell you that.

4 12 2008
what I found today « Oz Atheist’s Weblog

[…] what I found today Bad Ass Popes – the six most awful Popes, via Five Public Opinions […]

5 12 2008
Sean the Blogonaut

Lovely bunch of fellows 🙂

7 12 2008
Bruce

…and murder.

Murder is by definition the premeditated and unjustified killing of another (human – generally). As The Bible generally considers these things justified, killing gays and people who tease bald men and the like, they are killings, not murders.

Assuming that you can argue from scripture of course.

Thou shalt not murder, but killing people on this “okay to kill” list is just dandy.

Back on the topic of Popes, I prefer this one.

8 12 2008
AV

Thou shalt not murder, but killing people on this “okay to kill” list is just dandy.

Yes, the facile “murder”/”killing” distinction allows them to get away with murder doesn’t it?

Now, the objection might be raised that killing in self-defence ought not to be included in the Biblical injunction against killing. But how exactly does that square with the other Biblical injunction to turn the other cheek? Under what circumstances, according to the Bible, would it be considered acceptable not to turn the other cheek, or wrong to turn the other cheek?

8 12 2008
Bruce

Now, the objection might be raised that killing in self-defence ought not to be included in the Biblical injunction against killing. But how exactly does that square with the other Biblical injunction to turn the other cheek?

I couldn’t square it with the Bible. In my own book though, killing in self defence (when other options aren’t available – like fleeing) isn’t murder.

It’s not inconsistent with my ethics, but I can’t see the adherent to scripture faring to well.

8 12 2008
AV

I couldn’t square it with the Bible. In my own book though, killing in self defence (when other options aren’t available – like fleeing) isn’t murder.

You’re right, and that’s the point. Christians who declare that the Bible is the ultimate moral authority would still need to step outside the Bible to make a justifiable case for killing-in-self-defence not counting as murder.

Some dilemmas are true dilemmas. Either one slays those whom the Bible declares it is OK to slay, under the conditions which the Bible declares it is OK to slay, or one observes the injunction to turn the other cheek. I can’t see how it is possible to do both. Scylla, meet Charybdis.

The Catholic Church, AFAIK, allows for killing in self-defence, provided that the death of your assailant was not an intended consequence of the actions you took to defend yourself. It also holds that self-preservation (respect for one’s own life) is a moral imperative. This doesn’t seem to resolve the question, however. Does self-preservation trump turning the other cheek, or not? Or vice versa? Where in the Bible (though this is not as much an issue for Catholics as for Protestants) is this spelt out?

I guess an “out” might be provided by interpreting “turning the other cheek” to mean something other than principled nonviolence.

8 12 2008
Bruce

Scylla, meet Charybdis.

Absolutism, meet observation. 😉

The Catholic Church, AFAIK, allows for killing in self-defence, provided that the death of your assailant was not an intended consequence of the actions you took to defend yourself.

Speaking from my own experience, I gather that the fact that in the past, the intended consequence of some of my actions in self-defence (with back against the wall – literally) has been to kill, gets me in the bad books with the church. Even though it didn’t actually result in a death (or even a crippling.)

I’ve always been able to justify my actions, at least according to my own ethics. That being said, emotionally it resulted in somewhat of a roller-coaster for a number of years, including mistrust of myself.

I’m not prone to being a slave to my emotions, but there you go. I’m human. And so are Catholics – and I suspect from observation that they are on average more likely to surrender their intellect to emotion (or appeals to emotion). I’m sure the likes of Hickey expect as much.

Hence to me, I think the Church’s approach to this position (and similar approaches to other moral issues) understandable – it’s grounded in feeling. Which is great if you want to run a line of sanctimonious peer pressure to keep the congregation under heel.

Understandable, but a crock of shit.

23 05 2011
mac comestic

It is my great pleasure to visit your website and to enjoy your excellent post here. I like that very much. That is very kind of you to do this for us. Thank you very much. If you are looking for mac cosmetics , here is the right place. We are engage in mac comestic

3 08 2011
hotfix rhinestones

Very happy to see your article, I very much to like and agree with your point of view.

4 08 2011
crystal rhinestones

I’m like you write something, really very good!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: