« “Perfect” gurus: myth or reality? | Main | Can awareness be aware of nothing? »

April 19, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The Pope... is a dope.

And Bush... is a place where dogs go to take a pope...errr uh, a poop. But its the same thing really.

Bush and the Pope are both dopey dog-doo.

Moral relativism is absolutely the correct position. Moral absolutism is both right and wrong.

The Pope: marshmallow wrapped in icing and coloured silver paper.

Catholicism: a curious culture cast from the past; a huge, embellished, wealthy show enshrining a childish story from long ago. Like going into an expensive baroque chocolate shop- so reasuring to many.

It'd be funny if more people didn't accept statements like that without thinking critically about them.

"Dictatorship of relativism," said the person dictating how we should all live and what religion we should all follow. Hmph, indeed.

Frankly, looking at the state of the world around me, I see more problems caused by those who absolutely *know* that their view of 'right and wrong' is unquestionably *right* and others with different beliefs are wrong than by those who admit that things might just be a bit more complex than that.


Throw in a smiggin of Moral Pluralism into the soap.

Sometimes "moral absolutism" can also be "left" and wrong, too.

Robert Paul Howard

Nice and useful post about What's Wrong with Stem Cell Research?.

Have also given a link to it from my related post - http://www.engineeringservicesoutsourcing.com/b/fe/2008/03/whats-wrong-with-stem-cell-research.html

What's Wrong with Stem Cell Research?.


I would say that you would have more credibility if you laid off of the ad hominem attacks. Saying "the pope is full of shit" is only a childish response to a superb theologian. It indicates that one has no real defense. I encourage you to be more of a gentleman when disagreeing with others.
As for the Pope's absolutism: He is also against slavery and female circumcision. Is he a radical tyrant for these stances as well or only those that contradict modern liberal fashions? Remeber it was once popular to be pro-slavery. A person was considered a radical nutcase who barged into other people's private lives if he was against slavery. What do you think?

In the Immaculate Heart
Maximilian Biltz

Being a superb theologian is like being an expert on flightless birds: it takes a lot of work, and is a respectable job, but you're basically studying guano and protherial birth.

There are many people opposed to slavery and circumcision. He ain't spe-shul.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.