eldee:

It's not a 'cheap propaganda' or anything.
I made mention of the fact that the Vatican and christians in general see themselves as morally superior to the secular world.

Secular World? Did you mean to say Islamic World? Since when did northern Nigerian Muslims begin to believe in secularism? Or just because we're here "bashing" the Pope? Your history and profile that has always supported islamization of the whole World now talks about a secular World? Just how secular is Zamafara, Kano and other sharia states that prosecute christians?

The last time a secular governor gave a querry to an islamic emir, more than 200 people died in ensuing religious uprising in the north, and yet we're here freely discussing the "sins" of the Pope. You guys should learn from it, too.
We're also discussing priests and bishops who are pedophiles. How about the fact that Mohammed(peace be upon him if he did not molest a child, otherwise let him perish in hell) married a 6 year old Aisha, then rap*ed her when she became 9.

Muslim adherents like former Gov. Sani of Zamfara last week married 13 year old girl with the blessings of local religious leaders. We're not openly discussing these islamic pedophilias in Nigeria, because everybody fears a riot Yet some people are getting carried away, because the pope failed to adequately address cases of pedophilia while he was a cardinal

And I just pointed out things anyone can prove and a few I've witnessed myself. . .  
Forgive me for basing my arguments on fact.

What fact?
Your facts are cockeyed.

The Pope should be prosecuted for concealing paedophilia? Can someone lay out simply a summary, please no copy and paste, of a specific case where the Pope concealed child abuse?

All the innuendo is smoke and mirrors without stating the particular facts which give rise to a criminal prosecution of the Pope.

Why would someone be calling the pope all these bad names I've been seeing here? Like 'faux God'? There was never a time catholics said or implied thru their actions that the pope or any priest for that matta is God. Most of the insults rained on the pope and the catholic church are grievous cases of misconception and ignorance.
As for those thinking that the rep of the church has been sullied, the Catholic church is bigger than the Pope, the cardinals,and yes, a few paedophilic priests. It's bigger than any man or any group of men. No matter what happens, over a billion catholics will still remain true to their faith. Irrespective of this scandal.

I wonder what this world is turning into, to the extend that some atheistic bastards even have the guts to call for the Pope's arrest when he visits Britain in September. Why not try to call for the arrest of a minor Imam for amputation based on Sharia law. The Church have grown so silent and complacent to public opinion, that is why the western media thinks it can intimidate the highest order of moral authority, so there will no longer be any moral voice remaining on earth. If the Pope did in truth prevent a priest from being prosecuted, where has it being said that the Pope prevented law enforcement officers from doing their work. Let the truth be said, it is wrong for anyone, clergy or laity, to abuse sexually another in any way, but no one should be accused of another's crime. The church has over the years invested in the education of young minds in all spheres of life, of which i am a product, and issues of such abuse are rare to say the least and nearly non-existent in Africa. Why then try giving the Church a bad name, for a remote incident in one or two cases of a religion with believers around 30% the world's population. It is time we rise to our Church's defense, Archbishop John Onayekan, referring to the incident noted that the western media has never highlighted the work of the good works of the Church in it's life cycle, but can only seize this slightest opportunity to discredit her moral authority. The Church has produced saints of our time like Mother Theresa of Calcutta, Pope John Paul II etc. It's time we speak up to end this calculated attach on Christianity, However, the Bible predicts that this times will come when the Church will fall under intense persecution, ", and when these days come, know that the end is near, "

I have just this one question to all those in here who say the pope, the priests and whoever is involved with the catholic church should not be celibate (note this question was poised by an ATHEIST);

Are we saying there are no married people in this world who have committed such sins, are we saying that if they all get married that all these evil virtues would disappear. If an atheist can think like this then why would true Catholics say the  kind of things i am seeing here? Can we do a count of how many priests have actually done such things?

Like someone said earlier, "he who has no sin sin let him throw the first stone". I am sure there are young men in here who sleep with girls who are under age. I am also sure there are men in here who also sleep with young boys. We have to realize that these men of God are humans and need more prayers than even us. Because your crimes against humanity has not been brought to light doesn't mean it did not happen

The priest who has committed this atrocity should be brought to face the law, the current Pope who was a cardinal as at that time made a human error and has apologized and asked for forgiveness, even Peter who Christ built his church upon made human errors also. He denied Christ for crying out loud, which sin is greater than that?

Instead of allowing non-believers destroy our faith it is time we all come together and get them to see the truth. This is the only religion that is so divided but meanwhile is supposed to be the true one, how can we convince the atheist to join us when we are not united.

One begins to understand why Gandhi said, " I love Christ but not Christians".

The end is here and in the words of our book of faith, "the church would come under intense persecution, ".

Audrie:

Why would someone be calling the pope all these bad names I've been seeing here? Like 'faux God'? There was never a time catholics said or implied thru their actions that the pope or any priest for that matta is God. Most of the insults rained on the pope and the catholic church are grievous cases of misconception and ignorance.
As for those thinking that the rep of the church has been sullied, the Catholic church is bigger than the Pope, the cardinals,and yes, a few paedophilic priests. It's bigger than any man or any group of men. No matter what happens, over a billion catholics will still remain true to their faith. Irrespective of this scandal.

Thats your opinion. I did call him "faux God" and I will not apologize nor will I retract that statement. The man has an obligation as a so called man of God to set an example and like those before him he has failed. You may say that man is human which is correct however you have some so called Catholics who rush to kiss this mans hands and feet yet commit crimes and only pray once in a blue moon. Some don't even pray at all yet cling to this human beings every word. The catholic church is bigger than the Pope OBVIOUSLY. People tend to forget there is a creator and he does NOT walk the earth but rather is there for us when we dedicate our lives to him, unfortunately some put on a robe parade around like the Heavenly Father himself and lead people astray. Just because ELDEE and myself have actually done OUR research doesn't mean we are anti-catholics we are anti-religious hypocrisy and we are far from ignorant. Christianity/ Catholicism is not your native religion yet you took it on, more power to you but being a fair person regardless you must accept fact is fact. End of story.

@bebreif you need to get one thing straight. If the Pope is guilty I say put his hinny in jail. Crime is crime regardless of who does it. Jesus himself (the man they call Jesus anyway) said that "I am not God, I am man." yet people literally followed him around mistaking "messiah" for "God in human form". Messiah (Jewish word BTW) in actuality is "Prophet /man OF God". Unlike the pope Jesus did not feign to be the creator himself therefore with the exception of the delusional folks (whose descendants are still prevalent. . .CLEARLY) some people with sense realized that Jesus was here and found himself through worshiping his and our creator. Like the delusional folks of the ancient world you have some TODAY who clings to the Popes every word the point where they excuse his actions that the average person would rot in a cell for. Since when does being fair become synonymous with being "atheist"? Clearly you do not comprehend your own biblical texts. Are you serious? You need to look up the term.

@4 Play - You debate in bad faith. The pope himself has apologized in general for the abuses suffered.

@bebrief - atheistic bastards? You are exibiting the classic deflection syndrome. People have a right to call for the arrest of whoever they feel has offended.

remote incident with one or two cases? - no comments.

intense persecution? - you need go to some parts of the world to really know what being persecuted for the sake of the gospel means. Being criticised for shooting yourself in the foot doesn't really count as persecution.

@Dauchman - we're all human and have sinned - the pope has apologized, we should try and move on - agreed.

@omo fat i agree that we can forgive the Pope. Honestly I do but we need to kill the cover ups. I'm not feeling the double standard.

MzDarkSkin:

@omo fat i agree that we can forgive the Pope. Honestly I do but we need to kill the cover ups. I'm not feeling the double standard.

I agree.

He apologized for the cover ups too. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/7489455/Popes-apology-You-have-suffered-grievously-and-I-am-truly-sorry.html).

My main problem is with most of the staunch folks here who come out swinging and defending the pope, doing so out of blind loyalty, without really understanding the issues. Thats why you see things like "atheistic bastards", etc.

The truth (reality) is that an apology is about the farthest you're going to get. And you have to realise the importance/significance of a papal apology. For those folk who believe in the infallibility of the pope, and one guy on this forum who actually offered up prayers to the "holy father - benedict", a papal apology shocks their core belief.

MzDarkSkin:


@bebreif  Jesus himself (the man they call Jesus anyway) said that "I am not God, I am man." yet people literally followed him around mistaking "messiah" for "God in human form". Messiah (Jewish word BTW) in actuality is "Prophet /man OF God". Unlike the pope Jesus did not feign to be the creator himself therefore with the exception of the delusional folks (whose descendants are still prevalent. . .CLEARLY) some people with sense realized that Jesus was here and found himself through worshiping his and our creator. Like the delusional folks of the ancient world you have some TODAY who clings to the Popes every word the point where they excuse his actions that the average person would rot in a cell for. Since when does being fair become synonymous with being "atheist"? Clearly you do not comprehend your own biblical texts. Are you serious? You need to look up the term.

I do not know where you got your own history from. But i do know that Jesus said that he and God are one. and why would the Jews be so pissed off to kill a man who taught morals, its only because he claimed to be God and that for them was a taboo. And just incase you have doubts that he was nailed to the cross, you should look at Jewish history, it confirms that a man named Jesus existed and was killed for blaspheming.

And by the way Jesus actually spoke Aramaic. And the meaning of Jesus is God is with us.

And i do not know where you got the idea that the pope claims to be the creator. This is you blaspheming.

4 Play:

The Pope should be prosecuted for concealing paedophilia? Can someone lay out simply a summary, please no copy and paste, of a specific case where the Pope concealed child abuse?

All the innuendo is smoke and mirrors without stating the particular facts which give rise to a criminal prosecution of the Pope.

That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid, a press trial.
I'm not going to come here and say what I can't prove, let's leave this to the lawyers.

You putting me on the witness stand is obviously an easy way for anyone to label me anti-catholic.

@Omo fat right on. I agree with you 100%

@Dauchman. You don't have to wonder where I get my facts just know that its been thoroughly researched. Jesus was a Jewish man. He lived by the laws of the Torah. His mission was to spread the word of Yahweh and to lead his people in the path of righteousness against their Roman, Assyrian, Persian foes and previous oppressors. Jesus NEVER said that he and God were one, in fact there were three books written about him in the perspective of 3 men (Matthew, Mark, Luke). One during and two AFTER his time. The new testament was written primarily out of hear say and was remixed by non-orthodox Jews who we now know as Christians. Jesus was not hated by the Jews as Christians WRONGFULLY declare as he was seen as a messiah (messenger of God out of many) to them but not as GOD. Christians wrongfully detest Jews for seeing him as the MAN he was. They believed these messengers come in every generation and in all forms; Sent here BY God to keep humanity in order and most importantly keep the Jewish faith in relevance. The division came because the TRUE Jews did not believe in an afterlife but their imposers such Paul and his Christianity beliefs (a pawn to get Gentiles to believe) did. Because of their rejection early Christians tried to "demonify" the Jews to justify THEIR crime which was the crucification of Jesus Christ. (Christ Greek for 'Messiah' again a JEWISH word). So with that said the ROMANS were the ones who killed Jesus NOT the Jews. Your suggesting that they did shows your lack of historical knowledge. I am appalled that you would suggest such a false thing.


Why are Jews as a whole falsely blamed? Let's make it simple. There is a tribe called X-men (Jews). They live by their own laws and have been oppressed by the B- Men, the K-Men and the Y-men (Romans). In the X-men tribe is a man known as Man X. Man X has a right hand man in his quest to spread and maintain his tribes faith named, Man XX. The Y-Men somehow convinces Man XX that Man X is delusional and needs to be taken care of. They seal the deal by giving Man XX material goods. Man X is aware of this and tells Man XX that he for sees the betrayal and it happens. The Y-Men crucify Man X to send a message to the X-Men tribe and to "discredit" their God X-Weh. YEARS later the Y-Tribe takes on the identity (or tries to) of the X-Men. They rename themselves YX-Man Tribe. They intertwine their beliefs with that of the Original X-Men AND tries to justify their killing of Man X by casting blame on Man XX and the X-Men tribe as a whole. The YX-tribe recruits begin to believe that Man X was speaking for them and that the X-men tribe whom he belonged to was evil and began to assault the tribe of X-Men and their God X-Weh in years to come. Thousands of years later the YX-tribe commits heignous crimes against humanity. Sails to other parts of the world and uses the SAME REMIXED beliefs of their previous victims the X-men to "brainwash" these new uncivilized "heathens" sadly with success.

BTW. Blasphemy is the term a Christian uses when they cannot fight fact with fact and use their "holiness" to hide behind. God is on my side. He who seeks shall find. I have and I have found I don't need anyone behind a pulpit to tell me to. lastly I dont care what "Jesus" means as "Jesus is a PORTUGESE/ Iberian Peninsula" name NOT Hebrew.

MzDarkSkin:

@Dauchman. You don't have to wonder where I get my facts just know that its been thoroughly researched. Jesus was a Jewish man. He lived by the laws of the Torah. His mission was to spread the word of Yahweh and to lead his people in the path of righteousness against their Roman, Assyrian, Persian foes and previous oppressors. Jesus NEVER said that he and God were one, in fact there were three books written about him in the perspective of 3 men (Matthew, Mark, Luke). One during and two AFTER his time. The new testament was written primarily out of hear say and was remixed by non-orthodox Jews who we now know as Christians. Jesus was not hated by the Jews as Christians WRONGFULLY declare as he was seen as a messiah (messenger of God out of many) to them but not as GOD. Christians wrongfully detest Jews for seeing him as the MAN he was. They believed these messengers come in every generation and in all forms; Sent here BY God to keep humanity in order and most importantly keep the Jewish faith in relevance. The division came because the TRUE Jews did not believe in an afterlife but their imposers such Paul and his Christianity beliefs (a pawn to get Gentiles to believe) did. Because of their rejection early Christians tried to "demonify" the Jews to justify THEIR crime which was the crucification of Jesus Christ. (Christ Greek for 'Messiah' again a JEWISH word). So with that said the ROMANS were the ones who killed Jesus NOT the Jews. Your suggesting that they did shows your lack of historical knowledge.  I am appalled that you would suggest such a false thing.


Why are Jews as a whole falsely blamed? Let's make it simple. There is a tribe called X-men (Jews). They live by their own laws and have been oppressed by the B- Men, the K-Men and the Y-men (Romans). In the X-men tribe is a man known as Man X. Man X has a right hand man in his quest to spread and maintain his tribes faith named, Man XX. The Y-Men somehow convinces Man XX that Man X is delusional and needs to be taken care of. They seal the deal by giving Man XX material goods. Man X is aware of this and tells Man XX that he for sees the betrayal and it happens. The Y-Men crucify Man X to send a message to the X-Men tribe and to "discredit" their God X-Weh. YEARS later the Y-Tribe takes on the identity (or tries to) of the X-Men. They rename themselves YX-Man Tribe. They intertwine their beliefs with that of the Original X-Men AND tries to justify their killing of Man X by casting blame on Man XX and the X-Men tribe as a whole. The YX-tribe recruits begin to believe that Man X was speaking for them and that the X-men tribe whom he belonged to was evil and began to assault the tribe of X-Men and their God X-Weh in years to come. Thousands of years later the YX-tribe commits heignous crimes against humanity. Sails to other parts of the world and uses the SAME REMIXED beliefs of their previous victims the X-men to "brainwash" these new uncivilized "heathens" sadly with success.

BTW. Blasphemy is the term a Christian uses when they cannot fight fact with fact and use their "holiness" to hide behind. God is on my side. He who seeks shall find. I have and I have found I don't need anyone behind a pulpit to tell me to. lastly I dont care what "Jesus" means as "Jesus is a PORTUGESE/ Iberian Peninsula" name NOT Hebrew.

My advise to you is for you to go back and do a proper research and when that is done you can come and argue history with me. You can even look up some of the works of very strong Atheists just incase you need help from a fellow non-believer.

Right now i am laughing in Aramaic at what you have written.

omo~fat:

@4 Play - You debate in bad faith. The pope himself has apologized in general for the abuses suffered.

Stop being disingenuous. My question addresses the topic of the thread which is the suggestion that the Pope's actions warrant criminal prosecution. The Pope's apology for Irish priests' abuse can in no way be construed as implying criminal culpability on his part for concealment.

That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid, a press trial.
I'm not going to come here and say what I can't prove, let's leave this to the lawyers.

You putting me on the witness stand is obviously an easy way for anyone to label me anti-catholic.

That sounds superficially sensible but you made these comments:

So you're proud to admit that 'Saint Peter's successor' committed a crime against humanity and is only escaping from flaws in the law??
Wow!!! I'm apalled . . . WWJD?? The charges have not been proven, hence the need for a trial

Surely, if there needs to be a criminal trial, you should be able to state the facts which justify a trial as the mere existence of charges do not in of themselves justify stating that there needs to be a trial.

Every major public leader is always the object of some charges,e.g Obama is supposed to have forged his educational qualifications to get into Harvard and engineered earthquakes in Haiti, Bush/Cheney plotted the 9-11 attacks and the Clintons murdered a key witness in the Whitewater scandal. If someone makes haughty declarations that these charges ''need'' to be aired in a criminal trial of the accused, you would at least expect the person to able to lay out the facts which give rise to such 'need' for a trial, otherwise, everyone accused of heinous crimes would be hauled before the courts.

MzDarkSkin:

@Omo fat right on. I agree with you 100%

@Dauchman. You don't have to wonder where I get my facts just know that its been thoroughly researched. Jesus was a Jewish man. He lived by the laws of the Torah. His mission was to spread the word of Yahweh and to lead his people in the path of righteousness against their Roman, Assyrian, Persian foes and previous oppressors. Jesus NEVER said that he and God were one, in fact there were three books written about him in the perspective of 3 men (Matthew, Mark, Luke). One during and two AFTER his time. The new testament was written primarily out of hear say and was remixed by non-orthodox Jews who we now know as Christians. Jesus was not hated by the Jews as Christians WRONGFULLY declare as he was seen as a messiah (messenger of God out of many) to them but not as GOD. Christians wrongfully detest Jews for seeing him as the MAN he was. They believed these messengers come in every generation and in all forms; Sent here BY God to keep humanity in order and most importantly keep the Jewish faith in relevance. The division came because the TRUE Jews did not believe in an afterlife but their imposers such Paul and his Christianity beliefs (a pawn to get Gentiles to believe) did. Because of their rejection early Christians tried to "demonify" the Jews to justify THEIR crime which was the crucification of Jesus Christ. (Christ Greek for 'Messiah' again a JEWISH word). So with that said the ROMANS were the ones who killed Jesus NOT the Jews. Your suggesting that they did shows your lack of historical knowledge.  I am appalled that you would suggest such a false thing.


Why are Jews as a whole falsely blamed? Let's make it simple. There is a tribe called X-men (Jews). They live by their own laws and have been oppressed by the B- Men, the K-Men and the Y-men (Romans). In the X-men tribe is a man known as Man X. Man X has a right hand man in his quest to spread and maintain his tribes faith named, Man XX. The Y-Men somehow convinces Man XX that Man X is delusional and needs to be taken care of. They seal the deal by giving Man XX material goods. Man X is aware of this and tells Man XX that he for sees the betrayal and it happens. The Y-Men crucify Man X to send a message to the X-Men tribe and to "discredit" their God X-Weh. YEARS later the Y-Tribe takes on the identity (or tries to) of the X-Men. They rename themselves YX-Man Tribe. They intertwine their beliefs with that of the Original X-Men AND tries to justify their killing of Man X by casting blame on Man XX and the X-Men tribe as a whole. The YX-tribe recruits begin to believe that Man X was speaking for them and that the X-men tribe whom he belonged to was evil and began to assault the tribe of X-Men and their God X-Weh in years to come. Thousands of years later the YX-tribe commits heignous crimes against humanity. Sails to other parts of the world and uses the SAME REMIXED beliefs of their previous victims the X-men to "brainwash" these new uncivilized "heathens" sadly with success.

BTW. Blasphemy is the term a Christian uses when they cannot fight fact with fact and use their "holiness" to hide behind. God is on my side. He who seeks shall find. I have and I have found I don't need anyone behind a pulpit to tell me to. lastly I dont care what "Jesus" means as "Jesus is a PORTUGESE/ Iberian Peninsula" name NOT Hebrew.

What a load of HoggWash.

Your copy and paste comment is a blatant , misinformed, confused piece of trash.

Over a period of 24 hours , I will refute all your lies , one by one.

@MizDarkSkin, are u for real? Really. You sound very anti-christian.

4 Play:

That sounds superficially sensible but you made these comments:
Surely, if there needs to be a criminal trial, you should be able to state the facts which justify a trial as the mere existence of charges do not in of themselves justify stating that there needs to be a trial.

Every major public leader is always the object of some charges,e.g Obama is supposed to have forged his educational qualifications to get into Harvard and engineered earthquakes in Haiti, Bush/Cheney plotted the 9-11 attacks and the Clintons murdered a key witness in the Whitewater scandal. If someone makes haughty declarations that these charges ''need'' to be aired in a criminal trial of the accused, you would at least expect the person to able to lay out the facts which give rise to such 'need' for a trial, otherwise, everyone accused of heinous crimes would be hauled before the courts.

That's between Richard Dawkins and the CPS.
They have come out to say they've got evidence, the validity of that however is for the CPS to check.
That's part of the trial process that I hope will take place.

Now those comments I made on this thread were against the believers in the myth of papal infallibility.
I've said it many times that he's innocent until proven guilty . . . but to say he is/should be immune is the B.S I'm against.

eldee:

That's between Richard Dawkins and the CPS.
They have come out to say they've got evidence, the validity of that however is for the CPS to check.
That's part of the trial process that I hope will take place.

Now those comments I made on this thread were against the believers in the myth of papal infallibility.
I've said it many times that he's innocent until proven guilty . . . but to say he is/should be immune is the B.S I'm against.

No one should be immune from the law when it comes to criminal issues such as this.

But tell me, where exactly did the pope commit a crime ?

Now, I do not want to listen to random comments with no evidence to support your position. I want facts.

[size=14pt]There is a case of conspiracy the Pope may need to answer.[/size]

Was he complicit in the conspiracy to cover up the crimes commited by those employed by the organisation he leads?

If so, then he has commited a criminal offence. Its an open and shut case!

He has the option of plea bargaining or pleading guilty to a similar but lesser offence.

Alternatively he can claim to have comitted the conspiracy in a juristiction where is is immune from prosecution.

But his enemies are also wicked for pulling such a move on him!

And what goes around comes around.

I watch on with interest!

[size=14pt]Jonathan For Pope - 2011?[/size]

@frosbel

Are you blind?? Or what part of 'I'm not Richard Dawkins' don't you understand??
Please stop quoting me if you're going to just spew bollocks.

eldee:

That's between Richard Dawkins and the CPS.
They have come out to say they've got evidence, the validity of that however is for the CPS to check.
That's part of the trial process that I hope will take place.

Now those comments I made on this thread were against the believers in the myth of papal infallibility.
I've said it many times that he's innocent until proven guilty . . . but to say he is/should be immune is the B.S I'm against.

You hope a 'trial process' will take place on the basis of what particular facts? It's almost as if you are saying that there is a case to answer because Richard Dawkins says so. Dawkins has a book and speaking tours to promote and benefits financially from publicity stunts. What facts does he possess regarding the Pope that the parents of the abused and prosecutors do not possess?

eldee:

@frosbel

Are you blind?? Or what part of 'I'm not Richard Dawkins' don't you understand??
Please stop quoting me if you're going to just spew bollocks.

Not sure what you are rambling about in all honesty !

[size=14pt]There is no denying that he knows what has been going on for a long time![/size]

Therefore he has a case of conspiracy he needs to answer.

Why did he allow himself to become complicit in the cover up of the crimes commited by those Priests and Bishops?

It seems he has commited a criminal offence by not bringing the matter to the attention of the authorities.

He has the option of plea bargaining or pleading guilty to recieve a smaller sentence. (Maybe 3-5 years)

But that's not like 'Mandela Time' - So he shouldn't fear.

Alternatively he can claim to have comitted the conspiracy in a juristiction where he is immune from prosecution.

Like Nigeria! - BUT NOT THE NORTH OHH - THEY'LL CHOP HIM UP INTO LITTLE PIECES!!!

(I cant believe this thread is this long!)

@frosbel
That's expected, you're not sure of anything.

4 Play:

You hope a 'trial process' will take place on the basis of what particular facts? It's almost as if you are saying that there is a case to answer because Richard Dawkins says so. Dawkins has a book and speaking tours to promote and benefits financially from publicity stunts. What facts does he possess regarding the Pope that the parents of the abused and prosecutors do not possess?  

Exactly what I'm saying, these facts are in the papers already.
Me listing them will only lead to you trying to counter these facts and one long forum trial where we are the lawyers, witnesses and judges.

Now these people have come out with Richard Dawkins to go the whole nine yards, the question here is can the Pope be tried??

@@MizDarkSkin

He lived by the laws of the Torah

Ok

His mission was to spread the word of Yahweh and to lead his people in the path of righteousness

Not just the Jews but the entire world.

Hebrews 2 : 9
"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

against their Roman, Assyrian, Persian foes and previous oppressors

Only the Roman empire existed at the time. For your information the Assyrian and Persia empires had ceased to exist.

Jesus did not come to oppose the Roman empire militarily for he reiterated many times, that 'his kingdom is not of this world'.

Jesus NEVER said that he and God were one

Another LIE. He did and so did God.

John 10:30  "I and the Father are one.

John 10:31-33  [31] Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, [32] but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"   [33] "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God

John 14:7-10 [7] If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." [8] Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."   [9] Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father

in fact there were three books written about him in the perspective of 3 men (Matthew, Mark, Luke)

Wrong.

4 Books, not 3.

Matthew , Mark, Luke and John.

The Hague is the most appropriate place for the trial.

Afterall these are crimes against humanity.

@MizDarkSkin

The new testament was written primarily out of hear say and was remixed by non-orthodox Jews who we now know as Christians

Gibberish.

"To Theophilus: Many writers have undertaken to draw up an account of the events that have taken place among us, following the traditions handed down to us by the original eyewitnesses and servants of the gospel. So I in my turn, as one who has investigated the whole course of these events in detail, have decided to write an orderly narrative for you, your excellency, so as to give you the authentic knowledge about the matters of which you have been informed" (Luke 1:1-4, Revised English Bible; compare Acts 1:1-2).

Luke was an exceptional writer and knowledgeable historian. The events of the Bible took place in the real world, and Luke in particular records important details of the apostles' time that can be verified from secular history.


". . . As also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him [from God], has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16).

The apostle Peter considered some of the letters of the apostle Paul to be Scripture. Clearly, he understood them to have been inspired by God, just as the Old Testament scriptures were also inspired by our Creator

"For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18-19).

God takes His Word seriously, and so should we. It is the very foundation of knowledge and not to be trifled with. In principle, these warnings extend to the rest of the books of the Bible. We should not add to, nor take away from, the words that God inspired to be preserved for all mankind

@MizDarkSkin

Jesus was not hated by the Jews as Christians WRONGFULLY declare as he was seen as a messiah (messenger of God out of many) to them but not as GOD

Many Jews accepted Jesus as the Messiah & followed him.

It was religious authorities who rejected him for 2 reasons:
1) They thought the real messiah would throw off the Romans.
2) They figured they would become the leaders in charge.

Those who accepted Jesus, became the first Christians.

They realised Jesus was for all mankind, not just Jews.

Jews did not believe in an afterlife but their imposers such Paul and his Christianity beliefs (a pawn to get Gentiles to believe) did.

Daniel 12.2-3. “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.” The heavenly imagery would suggest a heavenly destiny for believers.

@MizDarkSkin

why are Jews as a whole falsely blamed? Let's make it simple. There is a tribe called X-men (Jews). They live by their own laws and have been oppressed by the B- Men, the K-Men and the Y-men (Romans). In the X-men tribe is a man known as Man X. Man X has a right hand man in his quest to spread and maintain his tribes faith named, Man XX. The Y-Men somehow convinces Man XX that Man X is delusional and needs to be taken care of. They seal the deal by giving Man XX material goods. Man X is aware of this and tells Man XX that he for sees the betrayal and it happens. The Y-Men crucify Man X to send a message to the X-Men tribe and to "discredit" their God X-Weh. YEARS later the Y-Tribe takes on the identity (or tries to) of the X-Men. They rename themselves YX-Man Tribe. They intertwine their beliefs with that of the Original X-Men AND tries to justify their killing of Man X by casting blame on Man XX and the X-Men tribe as a whole. The YX-tribe recruits begin to believe that Man X was speaking for them and that the X-men tribe whom he belonged to was evil and began to assault the tribe of X-Men and their God X-Weh in years to come. Thousands of years later the YX-tribe commits heignous crimes against humanity. Sails to other parts of the world and uses the SAME REMIXED beliefs of their previous victims the X-men to "brainwash" these new uncivilized "heathens" sadly with success.

Pretty much incomprehensible and makes no sense.

Back to the Pope question.

Suffice it to say that if he is guilty of any specific crime then he should go on trial, no one should be immune from the law.

But to use this article as an opportunity to bash him and others in general , rings hollow in terms of intended logical analysis of the topic, and shows a biasness based on ignorance.

eldee:

Exactly what I'm saying, these facts are in the papers already.
Me listing them will only lead to you trying to counter these facts and one long forum trial where we are the lawyers, witnesses and judges.

Now these people have come out with Richard Dawkins to go the whole nine yards, the question here is can the Pope be tried??

Which facts? I've just read Dawkins's article in the Guardian titled,''The Pope Should Stand Trial''. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/13/pope-prosecution-dawkins

He mentions the Pope's stint as Archbishop in Munich. Remember that the claim here is that the Pope signed off to a decision to allow a paedophile priest work in a church,whilst undergoing therapy, where he had access to children. The priest went on to abuse. The problem here is that the decision to assign the priest to a parish where he eventually abused kids happened a whopping 6 months after the Pope left Munich.

The seconds case he mentions is an American priest in Oakland. Here, the Pope considered a request to defrock the priest in the mid-80s,years after the priest had been prosecuted and convicted. The Pope's 'criminal' conduct here was basing his decision, which eventually was to defrock the priest, on things such as whether defrocking the priest was good for the church's image. Dawkins executes an audacious act of mendacity in his article by suggesting the matter was covered up despite the fact that the matter was already subject to a criminal trial. A rather sad case of bigotry masquerading as concern for children.

Sun of god:

The Hague is the most appropriate place for the trial.

Afterall these are crimes against humanity.

Is The Hague also the most appropriate place for the trial of all these 50 year old men "marrying and rap**ing 12 and 13 year old children.

I guess your prophet Mohammed would have been tried in The Hague too for marrying and r*aping a 9 year old Aisha, going by today's standards