«

[Lizard]

He was man as other. He made great things and also great mistakes. I think that it is his "aura of holiness" and almost saint status that offend Chuck the plant so much...(and me too sometimes)
You must admit that if he wasnt a head of church, but a president(or dictator?) he would be judged and treated very different..

But I have no doubt he was a great man by any measure,and I hope he will finally finds his rest now.

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by Lizard@Apr 4 2005, 07:39 PM
You must admit that if he wasnt a head of church, but a president(or dictator?) he would be judged and treated very different..

Well it depends. Remeber Josip Broz Tito?
He was respected both in the west and in the east (he was a communist who opposed Stalin). He had many flaws, but he also is a great man with many contributions to the world wide comunity (yet many say he was a dictatror). He made many mistakes (and crimes) and good deeds don't outwight the bad ones (they never should). But does anyone have the right to deminish the good someone has done because he has done bad as well?

Objectivity is the way to go - and trust me - as an atheist I have no reason what-so-ever not to be objective about John Paul II. I could even be called a communist, so I should resent the late pope for fighting communism (he fought it and that could make everything what he represents just a tool to fight what I believe in...), yet I do respect him as a person.

It's the media that is trying to make this into a spectacle - that's just tasteless.
They made the same sensational news on CNN when a small bomb (that killed no-one) went off in Atlanta during the time of the olympic games.
Now that does make me despise them.

[Chuck the plant]

Originally posted by Sebatianos@Apr 4 2005, 05:52 PM
But does anyone have the right to deminish the good someone has done because he has done bad as well?

THAT is VERY thin ice, my friend, and I guess you realize that, too.

[xcom freak]

''In recent days, the pope has also stressed the role of Catholic health workers in tending to the AIDS-stricken. "At my request, the church has mobilized in favor of the victims and especially in order to assure access to help and the necessary medical care through a number of treatment centers," he said. He was referring to the Holy See's Good Samaritan Foundation, established last year to coordinate funds and organizations to help AIDS victims. ''

[Chuck the plant]

Originally posted by xcom freak@Apr 4 2005, 06:12 PM
''In recent days, the pope has also stressed the role of Catholic health workers in tending to the AIDS-stricken. "At my request, the church has mobilized in favor of the victims and especially in order to assure access to help and the necessary medical care through a number of treatment centers," he said. He was referring to the Holy See's Good Samaritan Foundation, established last year to coordinate funds and organizations to help AIDS victims. ''

AIDS VICTIMS. Indeed.

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by Chuck the plant+Apr 4 2005, 08:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chuck the plant @ Apr 4 2005, 08:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Sebatianos@Apr 4 2005, 05:52 PM
But does anyone have the right to deminish the good someone has done because he has done bad as well?

THAT is VERY thin ice, my friend, and I guess you realize that, too. [/b][/quote]
Not really. There isn't a single person who hadn't made a mistake (except people so young they don't even count for such a discusion).

So respect the good someone has done and try to lear from the bad someone has done (so it wouldn't be repeated).
This also means that one must recognise the positive side of Stalin (and even Hitler) - still I won't ever claim they were positive figures.
Just like I admit John Paul II had bad sides (yet I'll never claim he was a bad person).

I think everybody should judge the reasons someone did what he/she did - not the resoult. The resoult might be a flaw - the reason gives us the insight of a person. If somebody tried really hard to do good - then this person is good - even if there was no succes (or even if people got hurt - in that case the person might be called an idiot aswell). But if a perons tried to do bad - even if the resould turend out to be good (for instance medicine achievemants that were made at the cost of brutal and sadistic experiments conducted on people) then the person is a bad one.

But that's much more difficoult - to judge a person by the motives - not by the resoults (you need to know much more about a person to do that - and that's hard work).

[xcom freak]

i just thought of something do u expect the pope to say :

Africans can have sex without condoms but others cant?

Legalising Condoms is not Christian ,it defiles life and permit sexfor pleasure , and he cant legalise for some and not for others. In this matter the pope is helpless he is a follower of Jesus CHrist who values life over any other thing.

Edit : dont say if he values life y is he allowing africans to die ---> not a valid argument and more or less expected by you

[Chuck the plant]

So you mean to say that we shouldn't deminish the good Hitler did for the german economy just because of ca. 60 million deaths due to WWII???

Sorry, I can't second that.

EDIT @ xcom freak:

i just thought of something do u expect the pope to say :

Africans can have sex without condoms but others cant?

Don't know if that qualifies as "thinking"... Where the hell would I have implied something even REMOTLY resembling? That's not making ANY sense.

And he's not "allowing", he's ORDERING. And yes, it IS a valid arguement (or proove to me, why not. Just because you say so doesn't mean that's the way it is). It's just another aspect of the hipocrisy of so called "christianity". Just like killing in the name of god is. Just like so much of the other things are that get violated even by the church, allthough they are right there in that big book they claim to keep in such high regards.

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by Chuck the plant@Apr 4 2005, 08:29 PM
So you mean to say that we shouldn't deminish the good Hitler did for the german economy just because of ca. 60 million deaths due to WWII???

Sorry, I can't second that.

I know it's hard to swallow, but YES - I'm actually saying just that. Even Hitler did some good things (I was thinking more the in line of building highways - that are basically still used today...). That should not be forgoten - but he still it the worst person I can think off.
All of the horrors he was responsible for make him the man who commited greates crimes against humanity and commited the most evil deeds. So clearly one or two good deed don't redeeme (*spelling* a verb made from redemption) him. Yet some of his deeds were actually good.

[Havell]

Only a celibate man could outlaw sex for pleasure.

@Chuck, Hitler did one or two good things (eg, the Autobahn) but the reason he did them were bad (to kill millions of people) so he was bad, this is Seb's logic (as I interpreted it).