Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He claims not be be questioning them
Yes but he mean't hes not questioning the religon in general.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
and then immediately states that questioning them is the central issue. The part you added back in doesn't change that at all.
Depends what he mean't by not questioning their beliefs doesn't it? Therefore hes not contradicting himself.
You know, I'm done with this.
I'm fed up with peoples combative responses to my beliefs.
I wanted this to be an insightful disgussion, it clearly isnt.
Why should I give an unwarrented justification to some one who cannot conduct themselves in a peaceful inquisitive nature and has no respect of others.
with that I'm not posting in here again. end of.
Originally posted by Lara
You know, I'm done with this.I'm fed up with peoples combative responses to my beliefs.
I wanted this to be an insightful disgussion, it clearly isnt.Why should I give an unwarrented justification to some one who cannot conduct themselves in a peaceful inquisitive nature and has no respect of others.
with that I'm not posting in here again. end of.
Who are you talking about? I never said anything bad to you.
sym and PZ:
indeed, I made a slip up there. I shouldn't have said I was not questioning their beliefs, as that was the central part of my argument.
What I should have said was that it makes no difference to me what someone as an individual believes, and I would never want to take that away from them.
Lara:
you never wanted to have a peaceful discussion. Your first response showed your bias, by referring to researchers as grave robbers. At several points in this thread I have asked you VERY simple and non-confrontational questions, many times on the first page in fact, should anyone need verification. You seemed not to want to discuss them, and posted several rants about ghosts and spirits. It seems that is what you wanted to discuss, and discussed it was.
If you want to talk about the research, answer the simple question: If the bones are to be put back, who decides when?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Can we put them back in the ground in a way that will preserve them and make then accessible for future research?
errrr, way outside of my field of knowledge, but I would assume there are probably ways to burry them so that they are more preserved than they would be without said actions, as well as ways to burry them that reduce the likelihood of them being damaged and increase ease of access.
The problem I see is that, with maybe the exception of those last points, would increase cost, above the cost of having to put them back anyways. Actually, I think if the Druid communities wanted to pay for the bones to be put back, that would work, as it is the charging of society for said superstitions that is the most salient argument against reburial.
That doesn't change the fact that they are still more likely to be destroyed in the ground, less people can see them and become interested in stonehenge and history, and less knowledge discovered from them, thus less benefit to society as a whole.
Originally posted by inimalistAgainst it.
mind you, you would be paying for them to be dug up in the first place, for them to be examined, and for them to be displayed and maintainedlol, totally off topic, but what are your feelings about public funding for research and museums and such?
Originally posted by Lara
bardock, if you live in germany then its not your tax payments that will pay for this. any ways I pay too much tax as it is!
First has already been covered as it was a general point. Second is exactly what I am saying...why do you want to pay more for this nonsense.
See, there is an interesting, similar but only in the sense that it involves exhumation, case going on in the UK right now concerning the Venerable Cardinal John Newman.
The Roman Catholic Church is about to elevate the Ven. Newman to Blessed on the path to his canonization as a Saint. However, this involves removing Cardinal Newman from his current burial place and interring him in a Cathedral- so that the faithful can have access to him etc.
Anyway, Cardinal Newman made a request to be buried next to his long time friend, and some believe celibate lovemate or sexual partner.:
I wish, with all my heart, to be buried in Father Ambrose St John's grave - and I give this as my last, my imperative will -Cardinal Newman
Thus, many groups are now saying that moving the Ven. Newman is desecration of his final wishes and wrong while some go further to suggest it is an act of homophobia on the Churches part.
Peter Tatchell, a homosexual rights campaigner said this:
“Newman repeatedly made it clear that he wanted to be buried next to his lifelong partner... No one gave the Pope permission to defy Newman's wishes. The reburial has only one aim in mind - to cover up Newman's homosexuality and to disavow his love for another man. It is an act of shameless dishonesty and personal betrayal by the gay-hating Catholic Church.
He is being moved btw...so what do we think of that?
Here are a some various stories on the topic.
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&q=Cardinal%20Newman&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
This is him...
For the record, his sexuality is unclear- many believe even if he was homosexual he was faithful to his oath of celibacy- Cardinal Newman said he knew he would be celibate from the age of 15- he was originally an Anglican Priest and pushed for the reunification between the Anglican and Catholic Communions...ultimately converting himself- as such he is a very significant figure in the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church of England.
To sum up whats happening:
A prominant Catholic Convert and Cardinal was buried, according to his wishes, with a fellow priest. Many beleive that his relationship with this priest was deeply personal- possibly sexual. However, the Cardinal is now being moved to a Cathedrial- away from his original burial site with the priest which has caused upset amongst various groups- especially gay groups who believe it is a move to silence rumours of Newmans sexuality.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavNot enough information in that. Who owns the place he is buried, for one?
See, there is an interesting, similar but only in the sense that it involves exhumation, case going on in the UK right now concerning the Venerable Cardinal John Newman.The Roman Catholic Church is about to elevate the Ven. Newman to Blessed on the path to his canonization as a Saint. However, this involves removing Cardinal Newman from his current burial place and interring him in a Cathedral- so that the faithful can have access to him etc.
Anyway, Cardinal Newman made a request to be buried next to his long time friend, and some believe celibate lovemate or sexual partner.:
Thus, many groups are now saying that moving the Ven. Newman is desecration of his final wishes and wrong while some go further to suggest it is an act of homophobia on the Churches part.
Peter Tatchell, a homosexual rights campaigner said this:
He is being moved btw...so what do we think of that?
Here are a some various stories on the topic.
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&q=Cardinal%20Newman&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
This is him...for no real reason...
Originally posted by inimalist
sym and PZ:indeed, I made a slip up there. I shouldn't have said I was not questioning their beliefs, as that was the central part of my argument.
What I should have said was that it makes no difference to me what someone as an individual believes, and I would never want to take that away from them.
Score one for bein' a douche bag!
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
See, there is an interesting, similar but only in the sense that it involves exhumation, case going on in the UK right now concerning the Venerable Cardinal John Newman.The Roman Catholic Church is about to elevate the Ven. Newman to Blessed on the path to his canonization as a Saint. However, this involves removing Cardinal Newman from his current burial place and interring him in a Cathedral- so that the faithful can have access to him etc.
Anyway, Cardinal Newman made a request to be buried next to his long time friend, and some believe celibate lovemate or sexual partner.:
Thus, many groups are now saying that moving the Ven. Newman is desecration of his final wishes and wrong while some go further to suggest it is an act of homophobia on the Churches part.
Peter Tatchell, a homosexual rights campaigner said this:
He is being moved btw...so what do we think of that?
Here are a some various stories on the topic.
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&q=Cardinal%20Newman&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
This is him...
For the record, his sexuality is unclear- many believe even if he was homosexual he was faithful to his oath of celibacy- Cardinal Newman said he knew he would be celibate from the age of 15- he was originally an Anglican Priest and pushed for the reunification between the Anglican and Catholic Communions...ultimately converting himself- as such he is a very significant figure in the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church of England.
To sum up whats happening:
A prominant Catholic Convert and Cardinal was buried, according to his wishes, with a fellow priest. Many beleive that his relationship with this priest was deeply personal- possibly sexual. However, the Cardinal is now being moved to a Cathedrial- away from his original burial site with the priest which has caused upset amongst various groups- especially gay groups who believe it is a move to silence rumours of Newmans sexuality.
I don't see what the Church would gain by canonizing a gay Cardinal. However, considering that his last will and testament says he wanted to be buried in a specific place they should probably respect that. On the other hand if he really was a devout Catholic he almost certainly wouldn't have had a problem with following a Papal order or becoming Blessed.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
[BI don't see what the Church would gain by canonizing a gay Cardinal. However, considering that his last will and testament says he wanted to be buried in a specific place they should probably respect that. On the other hand if he really was a devout Catholic he almost certainly wouldn't have had a problem with following a Papal order or becoming Blessed. [/B]
Well, noone knows if he was gay or not...
That look is certainly how I see it, as a Priest he gave himself to the Church in life and death.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
It is- and you asked who owned the ground, as I am unsure I posted the relevant authority who seemed to decide on these matters.
Fair enough. But it doesn't matter to my opinion who rules over such things in the current system. The question to me would just be who owns the ground he is in. Who pays for him to be buried there and who claimed the body when he died? Since there's not enough information, I can't be sure what I think of it, though, from a purely subjective standpoint, I do think you should respect the wishes of the person.