The Pope

[stj]

Sagart wrote:

---

So, after just 4 days of Pope Francis and a couple of, to my mind, very fair and open minded posts from me, you feel you know all about us both. Your eagerness to accept one view in this argument, with seemingly no willingness to listen to a balancing view, is unfortunate and, ultimately, very short sighted.
For the record, I have been reading many articles about the incidents in Argentina in an attempt to understand all that is being said on this matter so, rather than not wanting to know, I'm interested in understanding the full picture. Anyone interested in truth should be open to all views, not just the one that backs up their preconceptions.

You don't know what I've read, either in favor of or against, nor do you know what my preconceptions are. All you have is malicious rhetoric. I suppose that's appropriate to the cause you're defending. Might I suggest that the real problem is your preconceptions about liberation theology that are driving your conclusions? Pope Sucio's extraordinary belief that liberations theology was the main problem is uncontested in the entire range of commentary.

[Hound of UIster]

Tora Ziyal wrote:

---

If anyone's interested, this is an article on Pope Francis and the Dirty War by a prominent church historian.

The two jesuits who were interrogated and tortured believed he gave them up to the Junta.

[Brolan]

Hound of UIster wrote:

---

The two jesuits who were interrogated and tortured believed he gave them up to the Junta.

Unless they have some kind of proof it proves nothing.

[Tora Ziyal]

^Exactly.

Here's another interesting take on the subject, this time from the WSJ.

[teacake]

Oh we think they just pulled this out of their asses?

[Tora Ziyal]

No. But so much goes on behind the scenes in situations like that (dictatorship), it's totally plausible that even those directly effected might not know exactly how and why something happened.

[Sagart]

stj wrote:

---

You don't know what I've read, either in favor of or against, nor do you know what my preconceptions are. All you have is malicious rhetoric. I suppose that's appropriate to the cause you're defending. Might I suggest that the real problem is your preconceptions about liberation theology that are driving your conclusions? Pope Sucio's extraordinary belief that liberations theology was the main problem is uncontested in the entire range of commentary.

Malicious rhetoric?!? Please, point it out for me.

[J. Allen]

Sagart wrote:

---

Malicious rhetoric?!? Please, point it out for me.

He has no idea what he's talking about. Don't worry about it.

[Maestro]

Nerys Ghemor wrote:

---

Interesting piece, and not surprising when you consider where the early Church Fathers lived and wrote their works, and that this was probably also before the Coptic Church split off.

The split between the Coptic Church and everyone else was mid-Fourth Century, I believe.

[stj]

Sagart wrote:

---

after just 4 days of Pope Francis

very fair and open minded posts from me,

you feel you know all about us both.

Your eagerness to accept one view in this argument

a balancing view,

very short sighted.

Anyone interested in truth should be open to all views, not just the one that backs up their preconceptions.

The first excerpt is rhetoric, of the red herring species. The point is the Archbishop's performance and that was a matter of far more than four days.

The second excerpt is rhetoric. I haven't commented on any of your posts. Also, your first post had no point except to be snarky, as shown by the way the same post fired back at you hit.

The third excerpt is self-pity combined with claims to telepathic powers, imputing an objectionable personal view to me based on no evidence at all. That is, displays malice.

The fourth excerpt also claims telepathic powers and presumes that I haven't rejected much more negative views (which by the way I have,) pretending I am rushing to judgment. Also displays malice.

The fifth except should be a classic example of empty rhetoric. By your lights, what could possibly be a "balancing" view, except blind acceptance of apologetics?

The sixth excerpt is superficially merely a little snarky. My views on the immorality of the Dirty War and the ultimate insignificance of liberation theology are based on memories dating back to Camilo Torres and Archbishop Romero, yet you have dared to presume they are short-sighted. Displays malice.

The last excerpt is more empty rhetoric combined with claims of telepathy. Quite aside from not knowing what my preconceptions are, you have assumed they cannot be fully formed conceptions based on long observation and thinking. Displays malice.

Really, the only way to defend your posts is to hypothesize you're confusing me with someone else.

[J. Allen]

stj wrote:

---

The first excerpt is rhetoric, of the red herring species. The point is the Archbishop's performance and that was a matter of far more than four days.

The second excerpt is rhetoric. I haven't commented on any of your posts. Also, your first post had no point except to be snarky, as shown by the way the same post fired back at you hit.

The third excerpt is self-pity combined with claims to telepathic powers, imputing an objectionable personal view to me based on no evidence at all. That is, displays malice.

The fourth excerpt also claims telepathic powers and presumes that I haven't rejected much more negative views (which by the way I have,) pretending I am rushing to judgment. Also displays malice.

The fifth except should be a classic example of empty rhetoric. By your lights, what could possibly be a "balancing" view, except blind acceptance of apologetics?

The sixth excerpt is superficially merely a little snarky. My views on the immorality of the Dirty War and the ultimate insignificance of liberation theology are based on memories dating back to Camilo Torres and Archbishop Romero, yet you have dared to presume they are short-sighted. Displays malice.

The last excerpt is more empty rhetoric combined with claims of telepathy. Quite aside from not knowing what my preconceptions are, you have assumed they cannot be fully formed conceptions based on long observation and thinking. Displays malice.

Really, the only way to defend your posts is to hypothesize you're confusing me with someone else.

None of what he said held any malice whatsoever. Sagart is a very reasonable, considerate poster. Your assessment of his post is in error. You are trying to create a mountain out of a molehill. Don't like what he says? Move on. Telling him his post contains "malicious rhetoric" is nothing but hyperbole, and it serves no purpose.

[Sagart]

First off, thank you, J. I very much appreciate your comments. Secondly, as stj's reading of my comments are so incredibly wide of the mark, I realise that the best way to deal with them is, indeed, to ignore them.

God bless Pope Francis.

[J. Allen]

Sagart wrote:

---

First off, thank you, J. I very much appreciate your comments. Secondly, as stj's reading of my comments are so incredibly wide of the mark, I realise that the best way to deal with them is, indeed, to ignore them.

God bless Pope Francis.

My pleasure.

While I am not religious, it is my wish that Pope Francis be a kind hearted, compassionate man who leads through wisdom and love. May he be blessed.

[Sagart]

J. Allen wrote:

---

My pleasure.

While I am not religious, it is my wish that Pope Francis be a kind hearted, compassionate man who leads through wisdom and love. May he be blessed.

Amen to that

[stj]

Translation: The only defense of Pope Sucio's previous career is bullshit. We know for a fact that this clown was a moral misleader and not even the so-called reasonable posters dare to confront the case against him.