The infallible Pope asks a question

[David Swidler]

Hey, David Swidler. (BTW, I agree with your points.) Since you're Jewish, you probably understand Jewish culture, belief and history considerably better than I do. It was my impression that Jews placed little or no emphasis on the afterlife, and wouldn't peacefully die just because they thought there was eternity awaiting. Does that seem right to you?

Let's not get too derailed. You're welcome to ask this in PM or a new thread. But briefly:

They certainly wouldn't go peacefully, but the Jewish belief in the afterlife isn't really the issue (although it's a pretty important concept in Jewish thought, and it does get plenty of emphasis). Of more importance are the biblical injunctions to preserve life ("And you shall live by them [the commandments]" - Leviticus somewhere - which the Talmud understands as, " - and not die by them," i.e. preservation of life, as a rule, takes precedence over religious observance).

 

[Admiral]

Let's not get too derailed. You're welcome to ask this in PM or a new thread. But briefly:

They certainly wouldn't go peacefully, but the Jewish belief in the afterlife isn't really the issue (although it's a pretty important concept in Jewish thought, and it does get plenty of emphasis). Of more importance are the biblical injunctions to preserve life ("And you shall live by them [the commandments]" - Leviticus somewhere - which the Talmud understands as, " - and not die by them," i.e. preservation of life, as a rule, takes precedence over religious observance).

I think you misunderstood- the reason I'm referring to a belief in the afterlife is that I think rocketdodger's point was that religious individuals don't mind death as much because they believe they're going to heaven. (IF that wasn't it, rocketdodger, please correct me.)

Also, David, do you have evidence to support your claim that most Holocaust victims weren't religious? I'm certain a significant portion weren't (within any sample of any ethnic group, you'd expect to find religiously observant people and unreligious people), but I'd want to see evidence that a majority of the victims weren't religious.

And as for soldiers, rocketdodger, the stories of POW escapes, escape attempts, and rebellions are numerous. They aren't "slaves," they're "prisoners." That's beyond the point, though- do you really think that because priests consider themselves subordinate to bishops, they'd consider themselves subordinate to Nazis?

 

[ceo_esq]

As has already been mentioned, the point was not that he spoke infallibly, just stupidly or strangely.

How can he ask his god, in what seems to me an accusational tone, why something was allowed to happen when he would presumably already know the answer if he communicates with that god? Did he just happen to think of that question now?

It does not appear to me that the pope spoke stupidly or strangely. I think he was simply echoing the understandable sentiment of believers faced with an egregious event like the Holocaust.

How can he ask his god, in what seems to me an accusational tone, why something was allowed to happen when he would presumably already know the answer if he communicates with that god?

I communicate with my employers. Do I presumably already know why they allow certain things to happen? Honestly, not even the Catholics believe the pope's knowledge is coextensive with God's. The benefit that supposedly goes along with the papacy in that respect is that the Holy Spirit is supposed to intervene somehow to keep the pope from leading the Church into a theological error on a fundamental doctrine. The idea that being the pope would give one special knowledge of God's purposes on a specific level is just a strawman.

 

[Elind]

Actually, it was originally your stance that if the victims hadn't believed in God, they wouldn't have gone so quietly.

I think he conceded that, reluctantly. We all have our daydreams of being superhero, but some are more prone to put it in print than others.

However, I don't like the implication that religion teaches people a message of "Be passive and cooperative, because even if you die you'll just be in heaven."

There you go again; equating all religions as if they are equal. Next thing you know, you'll say all people are equal. (under God?)

 

[Elind]

It does not appear to me that the pope spoke stupidly or strangely. I think he was simply echoing the understandable sentiment of believers faced with an egregious event like the Holocaust.

I've heard plenty of preachers preach. Popes too. Their position is based on giving guidance and explanation to the flock. The point, which I've already made, is that the Pope should know damn well that it was not god that allowed "this" to happen, it was people, and his church palyed a significant role. It's a damn stupid comment because in the moment while he was saying it there were people dying for equally perverted reasons at the hands of other people and he knows it. If that comment were to be taken significantly then it's the only comment he should be allowed to make, 24/7.

Can you hear me now?

I communicate with my employers. Do I presumably already know why they allow certain things to happen? Honestly, not even the Catholics believe the pope's knowledge is coextensive with God's. The benefit that supposedly goes along with the papacy in that respect is that the Holy Spirit is supposed to intervene somehow to keep the pope from leading the Church into a theological error on a fundamental doctrine. The idea that being the pope would give one special knowledge of God's purposes on a specific level is just a strawman.

Give me a break.

 

[Admiral]

There you go again; equating all religions as if they are equal.

What I meant by "I don't like the implication that religion teaches" is that I don't think that ANY religion teaches that because there's an afterlife, people shouldn't care whether they live or die. I also felt like rocketdodger was implying that ALL religions taught this.

I'm definitely not equating all religions- I'm not even referring to Judaism as a homogenous group. I'm aware that not only do different religions teach people different lessons, but that each person's interpretation of a religion may differ. In fact, what bothered me about rocketdodger's post was that he stated that ALL religions taught people to be subversive and made them closer to becoming "a slave to everyone."

One last thing- rocketdodger, do you prefer "rocket" or "dodger" as a nickname? I'm a very lazy typer.

Edit- fixed typo.

 

[David Swidler]

I think you misunderstood- the reason I'm referring to a belief in the afterlife is that I think rocketdodger's point was that religious individuals don't mind death as much because they believe they're going to heaven. (IF that wasn't it, rocketdodger, please correct me.)

Not a Jewish attitude, historically. Death isn't welcome, but it is preferable to, say, committing murder, idolatry or sexual immorality.

Also, David, do you have evidence to support your claim that most Holocaust victims weren't religious? I'm certain a significant portion weren't (within any sample of any ethnic group, you'd expect to find religiously observant people and unreligious people), but I'd want to see evidence that a majority of the victims weren't religious.

Hard numbers are hard to come by, but I'll try to investigate. My assertion is based on classes I took way back in college, from which I was given to understand that after the Emancipation of the early 19th century, a steadily increasing number of Jews chose the host society's lifestyle over their traditional one (it was such a threat that the traditional establishment, theretofore bitterly divided over Hasidic vs. non-Hasidic, overcame their differences to preserve Orthodoxy).

That actually touches on a sticky issue, one of definitions. To the orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews aren't religious, but the latter two would disagree. The same thing probably holds true to a large degree in Conservative vs. Reform. So it's a difficult question to answer.

 

[Elind]

What I meant by "I don't like the implication that religion teaches" is that I don't think that ANY religion teaches that because there's an afterlife, people shouldn't care whether they live or die. I also felt like rocketdodger was implying that ALL religions taught this.

Fair enough, but you did realize that was a comment by me?

 

[rocketdodger]

In fact, what bothered me about rocketdodger's post was that he stated that ALL religions taught people to be subversive and made them closer to becoming "a slave to everyone."

Look, there are only really two psychological options.

1) You are subordinate to nobody.
2) You are subordinate to somebody.

That is basic logic.

Now, my argument is that all else being equal people in group 2) find it harder to stand up to perceived authority. This is simply because it can be hard to decide exactly who to be subordinate to in a complicated world. The members of group 1), on the other hand, have a much simpler outlook -- nobody has authority over them.

I am not claiming that most people would be in group 1) without religion, in fact they wouldn't because of the way society programs them to be good little workers. But the fact of the matter is that religion does insist that all of mankind be part of group 2), it is simply part of the doctrine of every major religion.

One last thing- rocketdodger, do you prefer "rocket" or "dodger" as a nickname? I'm a very lazy typer.

rocket is more catchy. This is just the name I played quake 2 and 3 under (I was good at dodging rockets lol).

 

[elliotfc]

As has already been mentioned, the point was not that he spoke infallibly, just stupidly or strangely.

How can he ask his god, in what seems to me an accusational tone, why something was allowed to happen when he would presumably already know the answer if he communicates with that god? Did he just happen to think of that question now?

I haven't read the speech in its entirety, and I'd like to see the full context of the question. How do you know if it was an accusational tone if you either don't have the question in context, or don't hear the speech, but just read a line?

I think you're overblowing an oratorical device. You're free to think that the current Pope is an idiot or stupid or strange, but please, he's a first-rate theologian, even if you reject his theology.

The Pope commuincates with God? Where'd you get that one from?

I'm assuming your last question is rhetorical. Consider likewise for the Pope.

-Elliot

 

[ceo_esq]

The point, which I've already made, is that the Pope should know damn well that it was not god that allowed "this" to happen, it was people, ...

People were undoubtedly the cause of the Holocaust, but to the extent that there's anyone who had sufficient information, who was technically capable of intervening effectively to prevent it without undue risk to himself or others, and didn't, then I'd say that person, strictly speaking, did allow (or contributed to allowing) the Holocaust to happen. Surely God - if he exists - falls into that category. (That doesn't necessarily mean the decision wasn't justified; just that we'd naturally wonder exactly what the justification was.) I'd apply a similar standard to any other sentient being; why should God be exempt?

... and his church palyed a significant role.

On balance, a significantly mitigating role, as far as I can determine.

It's a damn stupid comment because in the moment while he was saying it there were people dying for equally perverted reasons at the hands of other people and he knows it. If that comment were to be taken significantly then it's the only comment he should be allowed to make, 24/7.

I don't understand how that conclusion follows from the fact that injustice, inhumanity, evil, and inscrutable suffering don't appear to have gone away since the Holocaust. What you're saying could be said of anyone who ever posed the question "Why would a just and merciful creator allow X?" (where X might be a national tragedy, the death of a loved one, a perceived flagrant injustice, etc.). What's the big deal?

Give me a break.

We'll call that an argumentum ad "dona me fracturam".

 

[Dogdoctor]

Concerning the OP, it has been my experience that those in the church who are most trained such as priests etc are more likely to openly admit doubts or to openly question "God".

 

[drkitten]

Look, there are only really two psychological options.

1) You are subordinate to nobody.
2) You are subordinate to somebody.

That is basic logic.

Cute.

Of course, it's also "basic logic" that there are only really two psychological options.

1) You are the reigning Prince of Denmark
2) You are not the reigning Prince of Denmark.

Therefore, if you are not the reigning Prince of Denmark, you have no idea who your identity actually is, and so you find it harder to avoid turning into a hamster.

Basically, your "logic" isn't.

 

[rocketdodger]

Cute.

1) You are the reigning Prince of Denmark
2) You are not the reigning Prince of Denmark.

Therefore, if you are not the reigning Prince of Denmark, you have no idea who your identity actually is, and so you find it harder to avoid turning into a hamster.

If you cared about debating rather than earning sarcasm points, your statement might have been "and so you find it harder to weigh a claim that someone else makes of their being the prince of denmark."

And if that were the case, I would agree. Thank you for supporting my claim!

If you would rather I not put words in your mouth, perhaps you should do it yourself?

 

[drkitten]

If you cared about debating rather than earning sarcasm points, your statement might have been "and so you find it harder to weigh a claim that someone else makes of their being the prince of denmark."

All right, no sarcasm then.

Your argument is ill-thought-out, specious, fallacious, unconvincing, and shows no knowledge of either logic or psychology.

It's a loosely-connected sequence of statements that are, upon inspection, no only untrue, but obviously untrue.

Feel better now?

 

[rocketdodger]

All right, no sarcasm then.

Your argument is ill-thought-out, specious, fallacious, unconvincing, and shows no knowledge of either logic or psychology.

It's a loosely-connected sequence of statements that are, upon inspection, no only untrue, but obviously untrue.

Feel better now?

Yes, especially since you didn't provide a shred of evidence to back up your claim against my argument.

Let me restate my position so it will be easier for you to attack it. Please tell me where I am incorrect here:

a) Logically, one can consider themselves
1) Subordinate to nobody,
2) Subordinate to somebody,
where a "body" is some intelligent entity.
These two sets are disjoint and together they span the logical possibilities regarding the issue. In other words, if you are in one you cannot be in the other and you must be in one or the other.

b) From a purely computational standpoint, when faced with another entity claiming authority, any entity belonging to group 1) above concludes in a single operation that such a claim of authority is false.

c) From a purely computational standpoint, when faced with another entity claiming authority, any entity belonging to group 2) above must process the available data to determine if the entity claiming authority is in fact an entity that it should be subordinate to. This processing will take omega(|s|) time, where s is the list of entities that one should be subordinate to.

d) If one is a member of group 2), then for them |s| > 0.

e) Therefore, if one is a member of group 2), the minimum number of computations that must be done to check whether they should be subordinate to anyone claiming authority is 2.

f) Since the same computation can be made in 1 operation by members of group 1), all members of group 2) must think longer about deciding to place themselves subordinate to another entity.

g) Furthermore, because man is not a flawless computer, as the list s gets larger and larger, a person in group 2) will be more and more prone to making an error regarding when and to whom they should subordinate themselves.

 

[Elind]

Look, there are only really two psychological options.

1) You are subordinate to nobody.
2) You are subordinate to somebody.

That is basic logic.

Your basic logic you mean. I assume that this is meant as a self definition.

What's wrong with:

1) You are subordinate to nobody.
2) You are subordinate to somebody.
3) You are not sure.

?

 

[rocketdodger]

What's wrong with:

1) You are subordinate to nobody.
2) You are subordinate to somebody.
3) You are not sure.

?

You can add that if you want, but I consider it a specific case of 2). At any rate, it doesn't matter in my argument because the calculations for a person in case 3) would certainly take longer than either case 1) or 2).

 

[a_unique_person]

I think that to the Catholics the Pope is infallible in the sense that they don't believe he could lead the church 'astray'. Not infallible in the sense that he never forgets where his socks are.

He is supposed to be infallible only when he claims to be speaking on issue of divine importance. It's still a load of @@@@, but it is never claimed his is infallible on everything.

 

[Elind]

I haven't read the speech in its entirety, and I'd like to see the full context of the question. How do you know if it was an accusational tone if you either don't have the question in context, or don't hear the speech, but just read a line?

I read the same line several time in different places. How many meaning do you give to "how could you allow this to happen"? How could you (meaning elliot) construe this to be anything but what I allude it to be?

I think you're overblowing an oratorical device. You're free to think that the current Pope is an idiot or stupid or strange, but please, he's a first-rate theologian, even if you reject his theology.

And the theology that questions what god allows to happen, without an explanation, is called what in your book? In my book first-rate theologians should be first-rate providers of answers, not questions that any 6 year old can ask.

The Pope communcates with God? Where'd you get that one from?

Ahh, I see; the Pope only interprets the bible according to his personal views..... That makes more sense. Another ruler like all the others I assume.

I'm assuming your last question is rhetorical. Consider likewise for the Pope.

Unfortunately leaders of the faith, IMHO, don't have the luxury of rhetorical questions that have no clear answer. They wouldn't be leaders if they didn't have answers to the most important questions of all, would they?