Is Reuters A Reeking Swamp Of Bias And Incompetence?

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24

I wonder who Reuters is serving?

Merry Christmas to all SDAers.

felis

Hey Kate, it's Christmas, which in my mind is good reason to stop complaining about the world for a few days. Oh, and maybe share a few thoughts about your good fortune if you're intent on xmas blogging.

Merry Christmas.

Jim

Well at least Pope Benedict XVI has a few cogent things to say for Christmas.

Snowed under here in the "True North".

For a little media baiting we should all shout:

"GO PAPA-RATZI!!"

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North

Jim, which begs the question why you're online reading any of this. Never fails to boggle my mind when people willfully read someone else's blog and then complain that it doesn't say what they think it should say.

Somewhat off topic, but MSM related:

Couldn't happen to a more deserving group.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN2426545720081224?rpc=44

"New York Times Co November ad revenue falls 20 pct"

Someday, the gay ruling elite will be forced to pay reparations to what's left of the Christian community for doing to them what the Europeans did to the American Indian.

Thanks, Kate, for pointing this out. There is an excellent commentary by Phil Lawler at:

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otr.cfm

" In his annual address to the Roman Curia, Pope Benedict mentioned that the Church cannot accept "gender ideology" because it is contrary to God's design for the human person. No one even vaguely familiar with Church teachings could possibly have been surprised by the Pope's statement; it reflects the constant teaching of the Church. Yet dozens of commentators have professed shock that the Pontiff would dare say such a thing."
....

"The UPI story is headlined more soberly: "Pope's speech draws criticism from gays." ... When was the last time gay activists did not criticize the Pope? For that matter, why do we need to know what gay activists think about the Pope's year-end discussions with the Roman Curia? What did the Albigensians think of the Pope's speech? Did proponents of the gold standard have any strong opinions? ...

"Gay and lesbian activists say a speech by Pope Benedict XVI comparing homosexuality to global warming was irresponsible and encouraged homophobia.

Irresponsible: an interesting word. Is it responsible for journalists to fasten on one passage from a text? Is it responsible to seek reactions exclusively from those activists who will predictably denounce the speaker? The Pope is not encouraging homophobia; he's encouraging Christianity. What are the media encouraging?"

Reuter had it rite, how the Hill would the pope know what he himself said. He should have asked reuters what he said.

THEY can't go bankrupt fast enough

the pope delivered a very measured and thoughtfull address, now one should be upset with it, save the Reuters "transaltion"

MERRY CKRISTMAS ALL

and

God Bless (that from and atheist:-)))))

Reuters... Reuters... Isn't that outfit owned by some guy in Toronto? You know the one... Has more money than God.

The intent was obviously to mock the Pope's words by proposing the comparison in a way that sounded ridiculous. There's no such thing as objective coverage of the Holy See - there's always a clear agenda of undermining Catholic teaching, and it's to be expected.

It's heartening to know that the Pope is such a sign of contradiction; it means he's doing his job. Christ was crucified for telling the truth, so we should expect no less pain and abuse when we propose it. The world hates the truth with an undying passion, but we don't despair, because Christ has overcome the world.

How, exactly, did Reuters show this bias and incompetence in the case at hand? Their quotes seem to agree, and the inferences seem pretty straightforward.

I'm always prepared to believe the media incompetent, but neither the linked article nor the incoherent snorts of disgust from commenters give any real grounds to conclude that Reuters has gone wrong in this case.

Though scared by the weakness of its humanity the Catholic Church stands as a beacon connecting man with a God for 2000 years.
Many agree with the words of the Pope but have no venue to express themselves.
Reuters can chose to interupt the words as they will but the message will be heard.
For myself , I wish that the Pope could take these words and apply them to the maritial status of priests but that may but a Christmas wish.

Agreed - Reuters (in this case) wasn't dishonest in the least. They cut through the flowery feel-good nonsense of the diatribe in order to deliver the true message, much like this website often cuts through the feel-good socialist rhetoric of Obama in order to deliver the true meaning of his message.

The Pope was essentially saying that a marriage between a man and a woman is a holy sacrament which stems directly from god's creation of the human species. Which sounds wonderful, until you study a bit of history and realize that it's utter nonsense. Our version of marriage - or, more accurately, anything resembling it - didn't even exist until a millennium after the death of Jesus. Throughout human history, and for the vast majority of "Judeo-Christian" history, women were considered chattel. The church traditionally endorsed and encouraged the idea that women are the property of men. As such, not only did women get zero say as to whom they married, but "marriage" often involved one male owning multiple females. Polygamy was considered the norm. Therefore, there's a delicious irony in the head of the Christian church attempting to convince us that there's something holy and unchangeable about our current model of marriage.

Don't get me wrong - I think our current model of marriage is a big improvement over what we had before. But for Mr. Big Hat over there to lecture us about it from a religious standpoint ... that's just plain silly. At least Reuters only stuck to reporting the claims he made; if I were writing the article, I would have eviscerated his nonsensical diatribe, so that everyone could see his unbelievable arrogance and hypocrisy.

"Which sounds wonderful, until you study a bit of history and realize that it's utter nonsense."

I've studied history, and you're seriously deluded. Please cite your source.

"The church traditionally endorsed and encouraged the idea that women are the property of men"

Hilarious!

Alex

Let the words of St Augustine answer your foolish twisted sense of human society and its norms.

"If your mind, inebriated by its deep potations of error, can take in any sober truth." "If, then, there remains in you sufficient mental enlightenment to prefer the soul to body, choose whom you will worship".

In other words when a society more clearly reflects the glory which created it, by more closely cleaving to the purpose for which it was designed, the more life it shall enjoy. Lets put it another way, the nature of human procreation, of which heterosexual marriage is an integral part, has been around since the beginning and despite the modern feminist deconstruction of said natural occurrence, marriage shall long outlast the post modernist revisionist nonsense that you espouse.

"I've studied history, and you're seriously deluded. Please cite your source."

Where'd you study? The Distance-Learning Baptist Bible College of PA?

I don't have much hope of changing your mind since you're clearly indoctrinated past any semblance of rationality. So a 5 second search on wikipedia is all you're getting out of me:

Periodically, Christian reform movements that have aimed at rebuilding Christian doctrine based on the Bible alone (sola scriptura) have at least temporarily accepted polygamy as a Biblical practice. For example, during the Protestant Reformation ... Martin Luther granted the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, who, for many years, had been living "constantly in a state of adultery and fornication,"[30] a dispensation to take a second wife. The double marriage was to be done in secret however, to avoid public scandal.[31] Some fifteen years earlier, in a letter to the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brück, Luther stated that he could not "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture."

"On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that, because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years’ War ... the decree stated that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them."

Keep in mind these are relatively recent examples. Instances of polygamy declined drastically once the Christian church was incorporated into the Roman Empire, primarily due to Roman law, but polygamy continued to be an accepted practice (on-and-off) for a long, long time.

"Hilarious!"

Maybe you think it's hilarious that the bible advises parents to give their virgin daughters to crowds of men who are intent on ass-raping a male guest. Me ... I don't find it amusing in the least.

Joe:

"Lets put it another way, the nature of human procreation, of which heterosexual marriage is an integral part, has been around since the beginning"

No. Sex has been around "since the beginning". Marriage is a recent invention. For that matter, homosexuality has been around for a hell of a lot longer than marriage - we're talking almost 2 orders of magnitude longer, depending on how far back we can reasonably identify our ancestors as "human". Your ignorance of these facts s a direct result of the indoctrination foisted on you by your little bronze age cult. If they actually taught you history you'd be far better educated, which is something that all cults have a vested interest in preventing.

The Pope is Catholic, so Alex responds with Wikipedia and the Protestant Reformation. He then misses the beginning of Christianity by roughly, oh, 1000 years by calling it "Bronze Age". Simply brilliant. There can be only one justifiable response to such buffoonery.

To my blog!

You're making fun of me, while defending a book which says that an invisible Sky Daddy came to earth in human form, sacrificed himself to himself, came back to life with an army of zombies, and wants you to stone unruly children, kill homosexuals, and get on your knees for a guy in a funny hat?

Uhuh. Right. Pull the other one.

No matter how foolish I may be, there's no way I can match the sheer buffoonery of your "holy books". If you want to have a truly intellectual discussion, you'll need to ditch these bronze-age superstitions first.

Oh, and just so we're clear, the only thing you've managed to demonstrate is your own ignorance. I never said a thing about the Pope, so that's a strawman. And the beginning of Christianity IS bronze-age, since it starts with Judaism. Christ didn't replace the old testament, he simply added to it. I suppose you've never really thought about what the phrase "Judeo-Christian" means. Can't say that surprises me.

You take care now.

You know Alex I was thinking of having a battle of wits with you until I realized I would be fighting an unarmed man. But please carry on with you witless twaddle after all even a blind squirrel finds an occasional nut.

Just a small hint though: If you choose to use history as a back up for your debating point make sure you have an accurate version or else you lose all credibility.

Well thank you for that insightful commentary, Joe. It's amazing how much useful information you and Hanny have come up with. Why, I'll be busy for weeks combing through all the source material you've provided. You've given me a hell of a high standard to aim for! What can I say, you two are a credit to your religion!

"I never said a thing about the Pope"

.....

"The Pope was essentially saying that a marriage between a man and a woman..."

"Christ didn't replace the old testament, he simply added to it"

Really, is that what top rabbinical student Saul of Tarsus said in his New Testament letters?

"And the beginning of Christianity IS bronze-age, since it starts with Judaism"

Which is why Channukah and Christmas have been synchronized between the Herbrew, Gregorian and Julian calendars.

Fascinating. Are you advocating for the Old Testament typology of the Early Greek Fathers? How do you explain the New Testament being written in Koine Greek instead of Hebrew? Kind of odd to add to it in Koine Greek written by your followers, while speaking in Aramaic about Hebrew scriptures don't you think?

"Christian reform movements that have aimed at rebuilding Christian doctrine based on the Bible alone (sola scriptura) have at least temporarily accepted polygamy as a Biblical practice"

Since Catholicism has never accepted sola scriptura I fail to understand how your argument holds up prior to the Reformation for Catholic Christians, or after the Reformation for Catholic Christians. That leaves you with about 1,500 years to explain.

Oh well. That's all the bandwidth of Kate's blog I'm going to waste on this one.

Have a Merry Polygamous!

Wise choice Hannibal Lectern, debating with Alex brings to mind the admonition in Matthew 7:6.

And the beginning of Christianity IS bronze-age, since it starts with Judaism

"Which is why Channukah and Christmas have been synchronized between the Herbrew, Gregorian and Julian calendars.

Fascinating. Are you advocating for the Old Testament typology of the Early Greek Fathers?..."

What a strange thing to say! Alex is clearly thrashing about wildly in this thread, but at least that comment made perfect sense. Quite simply: Christianity claims the OT as scripture. Hence Christianity depicts itself as a religion as old as Judaism; indeed, it understands itself as identical with Judaism until the time of Christ. Your attempt to seem learned by mentioning the "Koine Greek" of NT writings (but just "Aramaic"? not "Late Old Western Aramaic", or "Old Judean"?) is completely irrelevant to the simple and straightforward fact at issue.