Take a good hard look into the life of new pope. To give an overview he thinks that:

Homosexuality is still a sin. He tells people to respect homosexuals, but whent the Argintinian government is going to make sam-sex marriage legal he says, "Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."

During his early life he gave up all his fancy posetions (personal cook, facy place to live, chauffeured limo) and made a pledge of poverty. This sounds awefully noble right? Wrong, look at why he had those things to start out with (because he was a cardinal). Think about what the Bible verson of Jesus would have done. He probably wouldn't have even considered giving those things out to preachers of his word anyway. So denying riches should be something that cardinals and popes HAVE to do an shouldn't be praised for. By the way, the pledge of poverty meant that he just had to live like everyone else in the community (what a saint -- sarcasm)

Lastly, there was a criminal complaint filed against him by a human rights lawyer for the abduction of two Jesuit priests. However, there was no evidence to prove that he had anything to do with it. :)

Please leave your thoughts and comments on the new pope

Tags: argentina, atheism, catholic, christian, church, corruption, francis, pope, power, religion, More…the, zealots

Views: 3113

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

By "they don't come from nowhere" I mean there must have been something to the accusation, unless the lawyer was completely full of shit (which I don't think he was) no one has given anything to say the he did or didn't have anything to do with so the question is open ended. It's just a fact that if someone is going to the trouble to file a criminal complaint against another person they must have some reason, that's just a fact.

And the 'fact' could be that they harbour a grudge against that person for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with the alleged assault.  Perhaps a spurned romantic advance, perhaps being overlooked for a promotion, or perhaps just a wild fantasy.

As someone putting yourself forward as policing the intellectual honesty of this discussion I think you ought to take a closer look at the intellectual integrity of your obvious bias.

What complete and utter BULLSHIT. Please look up the term, "due process". 

No it is NOT "open ended". If a charge is brought, the accused must be PROVED guilty or he/she is INNOCENT. That's a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT!

By your standard anyone can "go through the trouble" of filing a complaint and completely ruin someone's life because idiots like you ASSUME "there must be something to it" just because an accusation is made. If that's your definition of "fact", a whole lot of assumptions can be made about your thought processes. Are you a theist troll? (A reasonable assumption considering the way you think.)

Meanwhile we'll just go ahead and assume you are a theist troll. The question has been raised. There must be something to it, right? The question is open ended, right? Your denials are irrelevant. The assumption has been made. We'll just go ahead and roll with that.

FACT: Sam Redmon is a a theist troll.

I don't know what sort of evidence there is that Sam Redmon is a theist troll, but these sorts of accusations don't come from nowhere, right?

You could make that claim and a pretty convincing argument for it. I am not a theist, but I see where you're coming from.
@Mike if you're talking about the US criminal justice system, I'm sorry to say that is a flawed system. Hundreds of innocent people go to jail all the time, meaning that for every innocent person in jail there is at least 1 criminal free. So innocent until proven guilty is not the best way to go. And yes false accusations can ruin someone's life, but prove to me that this was a false accusation and ill side with you.
No one has even tried to defend the pope with any evidence, show me evidence of his guilt, or innocence, and nobody has given either one (I know I haven't either so don't try that one).
Show me he is innocent without a doubt.

You should bear the burden of proof here. The problem is not his guilt or innocence; the problem is whether or not your implication was justified. Even if he is guilty, that does not inherently justify your claim.

Sorry, I thought you were trolling. I figured you'd say, "got me". But no, you "honestly" don't accept (nor understand) the basic tenet of civilized legal systems. You want "guilty until proven innocent", eh? What more can I say?

Sorry I misjudged you. Please say a prayer for me.

Lol, still not a theist, you could probably deduce that from this post of mine, previous posts, my blog, or various other sources. That's beside the matter though. Look at the flaws of civilized legal system and you'll realize that it's not all it cut out to be.
However, @Kris I can see your point, and should probably have revised my post a little.
I didn't set out to offend anyone, my sincerest apologies if I have.

Sam, I have no personal bone to pick with you, so this is simply FYI - I lived in Mexico for several years, and under the Mexican "justice" system, a person accused of a crime is guilty - why else would he be arrested? - until he or she proves himself innocent, and in Mexican jails, if you want to eat, you need to buy your own food. It doesn't take much time in a Mexican jail, which is not all the fun it's cracked up to be, to appreciate the American "innocent until proven guilty" system - and on this side of the Rio, the food is free.

Thank you for your insight. I agree, a guilty until proven innocent system is much worse than innocent until proven guilty. I think we have a good system in comparison, but should be revised so as so many innocent people aren't getting put away.
And as for the food, tax payers pay for that here

The Vatican must have some kind of Nazi obsession.  The last Pope was a Hitler youth.  This new one collaborated very closely with the fascist government that was "disappearing" people in the 70's.  He even ratted out two monks who were subsequently "disappeared."  What was their crime?  Working to improve the living conditions of poor people in the Argentine slums, instead of converting them, as the abominably cruel Mother Teresa would have done.

@DaleHeadley, "This new one collaborated very closely with the fascist government that was "disappearing" people in the 70's" is a claim.  What is your evidence and reasoning?  The men you mention were not "monks" by the way, they were Jesuit priests.

Adolfo Perez Esquivel, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for documenting the atrocities in Argentina during the "dirty war" is on record as saying that Bergoglio is innocent of the charges you just made.  Do you have some evidence that he and the Argentinian legal system does not?

The reasoning is also faulty.  At the time, Bergoglio was the Jesuit provincial responsible for those two men.  Betraying them would have cost him everything in the Society.  Ruined his career, marked him for life.  To what end?  What would be the motive?

RSS

Blog Posts

Creationists Dispute

Posted by Fouad on December 24, 2014 at 7:26am 3 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service