View Full Version : No new Pope talk?
Belmont31R
03-15-13, 01:23
No Catholics on here?
While I am an diest I have an interest in more formal religions, and pay attention to this stuff.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324077704578360063416602492.html?mod=WSJ__MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth
I would like to see the Catholic church grow as they have some good values, and this is the first Pope from either Americas. Any talk on the future of the church and modern times? Going to cave on values?
Personally I think it is a great move for the church and whilst I'm not as devout a catholic as I should be (forgive me lord) I'm looking forward to Pope Francis' time as pontiff. His attitudes, beliefs, and more importantly his character is a refreshing change. That and it has in some ways prodded me to look at somethings in my personal life a little differently.
I would like to see the Catholic church grow as they have some good values, and this is the first Pope from either Americas. Any talk on the future of the church and modern times? Going to cave on values?
Let me say up front, I am not Catholic.
From what I have read, Pope Francis (amazing that that name had never been used before) is a good choice based on the challenges the Catholic Church faces and will be facing.
He seems to be set in his beliefs, so I don't think the Church or the Pope will cave on their values. I think that is good, as I have personal belief in many of the same values (vs political belief), and think we are better off with strong values being taught in our communities through our churches. (Don't like what you hear? Don't attend).
It will be interesting to watch how the Pope and the Catholic Church move forward from here.
One thing I think that may come out of this in the end is the end of the "celibacy" bit for priests. It is more a tradition than a doctrine based on the Bible or Biblical teachings, which makes it something easier for them to change, and I think that this tenet is one of the "causes" of the problems they've been having with sexual deviancy and sexual issues amongst priests.
Good luck to the new Pope!
--
not a catholic non denominational type Christian :)
but from hearing a bit about him seems like maybe something the church needs to have such a conservative guy and very very very humble by the sounds of it !
Alaskapopo
03-15-13, 02:07
No Catholics on here?
While I am an diest I have an interest in more formal religions, and pay attention to this stuff.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324077704578360063416602492.html?mod=WSJ__MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth
I would like to see the Catholic church grow as they have some good values, and this is the first Pope from either Americas. Any talk on the future of the church and modern times? Going to cave on values?
I don't really care about what leaders of the various organized religions have to say.
pat
I don't really care about what leaders of the various organized religions have to say.
pat
You should. Whether or not you are religious, or Catholic, or Protestant, or Buddhist, Or Muslim, or one of those dang Mormons, or atheist, or agnostic, or a FSM adherent, the Catholic Church is one of the largest organized religions and has tremendous say in today's world in large parts of the world.
Whether or not you agree with what the Pope says, you probably should be aware of it.
The same way you probably should be aware of what BHO says or any of the fat mouths in DC say since it can have a great effect on your life whether or not you agree or want it to.
--
Too many actual and important things going on to care about what is essentially a man in a dress.
When things aren't dire I might take the time to give a damn about whatever. I watched the Royal Wedding for example. But right now American rights are at something like Defcon 2 so unless the new Pope is going to come speak in favor of Pmags I just don't have the time to care right now.
I am so full of 'who cares about the pope' I'm having difficulty making a polite statement.
I think that church has done more damage to the world than organized crime.
I put in my app, the Vatican said they weren't interested...something about me not being Catholic...
I am really disappointed...my parents told me this is America and I could be anything I wanted to be....
I put in my app, the Vatican said they weren't interested...something about me not being Catholic...
I am really disappointed...my parents told me this is America and I could be anything I wanted to be....
To bad they did not also tell you about geography so you would understand where the Vatican is :) hint not America :)
Please read with a smile playing off the joke :)
To bad they did not also tell you about geography so you would understand where the Vatican is :) hint not America :)
Please read with a smile playing off the joke :)
An American could have become Pope, the two Cardinals (Dolan and... some Irish name) were considered favorites. Who knows, we could have a Cardinal Chuckman in a few years, then a Pope Chuckman in a couple of decades!
Unless Chuckman is actually a woman, then no, sorry, your parents lied.
theblackknight
03-15-13, 05:58
I dont understand this. The cult of personality makes people act weird. I saw footage of grown men literally kissing this dudes rings on his hands. At least the media wont spend as much time yapping about this as the dam royal wedding.
sent from mah gun,using my sights
The Onion has this late-breaking news item...
http://www.theonion.com/video/pope-francis-resigns,31660/
Organized religion is one of the most destructive things that the world has ever known. The violence that has come from it should be a clue.
Religion is inherently good, people are what corrupt it...
So I guess you could say that I don't really care much about the pageantry of the naming of the new pope.
LOL.
And THAT is why I didn't start a new Pope thread.
If the Pope wishes or desires to have my respect.......he needs a new ride.
The Popemobile is one of the lamest things I have ever seen.
:D
An American could have become Pope, the two Cardinals (Dolan and... some Irish name) were considered favorites. Who knows, we could have a Cardinal Chuckman in a few years, then a Pope Chuckman in a couple of decades!
Unless Chuckman is actually a woman, then no, sorry, your parents lied.
I am red-white-and-blue 'merican, but solidly protestant. I guess being married with 6 kids would not help, either. :)
Pope Frank!
I'm a non-denominational Christian (or at least I make an honest effort to be), and I don't like the Roman Catholic Church. Too much hierarchy, too many laws and rules, too much money, too much pageantry and showmanship, too scripted, and last but not least, too corrupt.
I don't like a gargantuan organization with a hierarchy of leaders between me and God. Church is supposed to be about fellowship in The Lord, not dressing up and listening to mono-tone stale sermons in a dim, dusty church, being guilt-tripped into putting money in the basket, and hanging on every word of the priests and leadership.
Plus, at least in my town, IMO, 95% of Catholics are complete hypocrites. They party hard, drunk every weekend, fornicate like crazy, get high, cheat and lie, etc. I'm not even talking "Xmas and Easter" Catholics either, they go all the time, dressed up in their suits and dresses to flaunt wealth. Ugh.
Organized religion is one of the most destructive things that the world has ever known. The violence that has come from it should be a clue.
Normally when a leftist atheist tells me that, I ask them "How many millions did your god (government) kill last century?"
I do agree on your second part. People will always find a reason to kill a bunch of others.
Normally when a leftist atheist tells me that, I ask them "How many millions did your god (government) kill last century?"
Why would you assume that an atheist see's government as a god? If there is no god there is no need for a god substitute just as if there is no easter bunny there is no need for an easter bunny substitute. Do you require a zues or apollo substitute?
Why would you assume that an atheist see's government as a god? If there is no god there is no need for a god substitute just as if there is no easter bunny there is no need for an easter bunny substitute. Do you require a zues or apollo substitute?
I wasn't talking about all atheists (especially not you guys here), just the loud mouthed leftist radicals (the ones that want to shove it down your throat).
The way I see it, humans in general want to believe in something. If there is no god(s) to believe in, they want to believe that government can solve all of their problems. That's my theory as to why the left wants governments as parental figures. Might also explain why they are susceptible to personality cults.
My point was to further Pat's comment that it's people, and not whatever ideology/belief that they subscribe to. Killing a bunch of innocent people in the name of a cause isn't just an "organized religion" thing.
I am not a Catholic, but I do find it all interesting.
C4
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-15-13, 17:41
The Black Pope...
No one else picked up on this, and for those that don't know that means he is the first Jesuit Pope.
Institutionally reform minded, dedicated to higher learning (Francis is actually a chemist) they are not your normal parish priest. They were the direct action operatives of the Catholic Church and have not always been in favor with all the Popes. They run the largest global system higher learning and have done so for hundreds of years.
Hierarchy is the price you pay for global consistency and solid doctrine. Read some of Benedict's writings and you'll see solid logic at work.
Of course, I'm not neutral in this arguement. The new Pope and I are both Jesuit trained chemists. I know there are Catholic haters out there, hey there are a lot of USA haters out there too. Every hates the Yankees, nobody gives a shit about the Pirates.
As to 'guys in dresses' having little impact on the world, withou JPII the Solidarity part in Poland wouldn't have gotten as much attention. Do you think they picked JPII because of his perogies? Does anyone think that with out Maggie Thatcher and if Reagan and JPII had been successfully assassinated that the Cold War would have ended the way it did?
Normally when a leftist atheist tells me that, I ask them "How many millions did your god (government) kill last century?"
I do agree on your second part. People will always find a reason to kill a bunch of others.
Well, FWIW, I consider myself a Christian... I just happen to believe that religion is a personal thing, not something centered around a business, building, ritualistic nuances etc, etc... I also believe that that people have the right to believe in whatever they want and should be given the same respect you would want in return and simply left alone.
On the matter of violence in the name of religion, the facts are what they.
No one else picked up on this, and for those that don't know that means he is the first Jesuit Pope.
Institutionally reform minded, dedicated to higher learning (Francis is actually a chemist) they are not your normal parish priest. They were the direct action operatives of the Catholic Church and have not always been in favor with all the Popes. They run the largest global system higher learning and have done so for hundreds of years.
Hierarchy is the price you pay for global consistency and solid doctrine. Read some of Benedict's writings and you'll see solid logic at work.
Of course, I'm not neutral in this arguement. The new Pope and I are both Jesuit trained chemists. I know there are Catholic haters out there, hey there are a lot of USA haters out there too. Every hates the Yankees, nobody gives a shit about the Pirates.
As to 'guys in dresses' having little impact on the world, withou JPII the Solidarity part in Poland wouldn't have gotten as much attention. Do you think they picked JPII because of his perogies? Does anyone think that with out Maggie Thatcher and if Reagan and JPII had been successfully assassinated that the Cold War would have ended the way it did?
Interesting. I knew he was a trained as a Chemist.
I think most people that are not into any religion fail to fully crasp the power that a Pope can and does have. They just blow it off as sillyness and don't think they matter.
C4
I wasn't talking about all atheists (especially not you guys here), just the loud mouthed leftist radicals (the ones that want to shove it down your throat).
The way I see it, humans in general want to believe in something. If there is no god(s) to believe in, they want to believe that government can solve all of their problems. That's my theory as to why the left wants governments as parental figures. Might also explain why they are susceptible to personality cults.
My point was to further Pat's comment that it's people, and not whatever ideology/belief that they subscribe to. Killing a bunch of innocent people in the name of a cause isn't just an "organized religion" thing.
Gotcha, just trying to get a clarification.
The way I see it, there either is or isn't a god.
Either way he doesn't seem to be showing up to the meetings reliably so we should conduct ourselves as if we are on our own. I wish we had a better means of doing so than our current and recent government but it is what it is.
For me personally I'm just trying to get through life without being one of those guys in the bell tower with a rifle. I take deliberate steps to make sure I don't know where any of the bell towers are locally.
As to 'guys in dresses' having little impact on the world, withou JPII the Solidarity part in Poland wouldn't have gotten as much attention. Do you think they picked JPII because of his perogies? Does anyone think that with out Maggie Thatcher and if Reagan and JPII had been successfully assassinated that the Cold War would have ended the way it did?
I get that and respect JPII for his actions regarding Poland. I also understand the Pope is a powerful world figure, I'm just saying I have too much important stuff going on locally to devote time and attention.
There is no indication that Bergoglio will end the Catholic Church's genocidally stupid stance on contraception. Imagine it, in AIDS riddled Africa, the church continues to tell people that they risk hellfire by using condoms -- even between married couples where only one of them is HIV+. Study after study after study indicates that ABC education programs (abstinence if you possibly can, be faithful to your partner, and use condoms) are massively more effective than abstinence only programs in Africa. Yet the Catholic church, not content to just ban contraception, spreads the lie to uneducated Africans that condoms actually INCREASE the transmission of AIDS (look up Ratzinger's statements on this issue of you don't believe me). And all of this while covering up, protecting, and shuttling around an army of child rapists to shield them from secular justice. I hate the euphemisms also. It's not child abuse. Child abuse is spanking too hard or leaving a kid in a hot car for a few minutes. This is child rape that occurred in Church-run organizations all over the globe. Now the hierarchy is protecting them. This is criminal. Will the new Pope fix all this? If not, why revere him? Why respect him?
This is all so criminally stupid, but because it's cloaked in religion, it remains taboo to say this out loud in our public discourse. Well f*** that, I say. There is no reason why behavior like this needs to be treated with special sensitivity and kid-gloves just because the Church's adherents have specific beliefs about the nature of the universe and its origins. No more special treatment just because you have an opinion about the existence of the supernatural. I don't remain a US citizen so that I can keep my mouth shut just because somebody is offended, and I'm going to reject all offers to do so, thanks.
Moose-Knuckle
03-15-13, 20:06
The Black Pope...
No one else picked up on this, and for those that don't know that means he is the first Jesuit Pope.
Well at least it was mentioned on the first page. Can't say the same about the predictions St. Malachy or Nostradamus however. :laugh:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/10/17238040-are-cardinals-electing-the-last-pope-if-you-believe-nostradamus?lite
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-15-13, 20:58
And while we are on the Jesuit topic:
Go Billikens!!!!!
I've actually got a good deal of respect for the Jesuit tradition, believe it or not. I've had the pleasure of studying with Jesuits this last year. Worthy adversaries in debate, for sure.
Magic_Salad0892
03-15-13, 21:05
The Black Pope...
ETA: I read the rest of the thread. I thought you were talking about Anton LaVey for some reason.
LOL.
And THAT is why I didn't start a new Pope thread.
Exactly. To those who care (me for one) what a bunch of other people have to say about my faith or its leaders is irrelevant. As illustrated in this thread there is far more ignorance or antipathy in this event by most on the forum than understanding or even curiosity.
Pope Francis appears to be a holy and simple man yet folks will invent ways to rant anyway. He is not going to change the Church. That is not his role as Shepard. The Church does not change according to the whims of the world, its mission is to bring the world to Christ.
As with any group of 1 billion people there are some idiots (Pelosi), criminals and lazy practitioners. Wow, someone found a few to highlight?! Show me another group of people around 1 billion (or even ten) without corruption or frailties I will congratulate you then.
For the Catholic faithful this pope is the continuation of a long procession. He was hand picked by John Paul II to become cardinal in 2001. He will not try to modernize the Church in the image of the modern world. Thank God.
. As illustrated in this thread there is far more ignorance or antipathy in this event by most on the forum than understanding or even curiosity.
I think there is more lightheartedness than either of these two. I am not Catholic, but I do make fun of my Catholic brethren. That said at the end of the day it does not matter who the pope is, what matters is your relationship with Jesus and God.
I also get the historical importance of choosing a new pope, but all of the media attention is just insane.
As with any group of 1 billion people there are some idiots (Pelosi), criminals and lazy practitioners. Wow, someone found a few to highlight?! Show me another group of people around 1 billion (or even ten) without corruption or frailties I will congratulate you then.
I want to engage with you frankly, honestly, and directly. If we can both keep the offense-taking to a minimum and speak with the kid-gloves off, this might be possible. Anyway:
This is partially true, of course. But isn't it also a bit misleading? Isn't it true to say that the rape and torture of children was institutional, and not some random occurrence or chance artifact that you might expect to find in any large group? Isn't it true to say that the Church hierarchy deliberately shielded child-rapists from secular justice?
Isn't it true to say that the church of "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus," the church that claims to be led by the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Church whose Pope claims for himself the ability to speak infallibly at certain times, the church that imagines itself to be in communication with god and imagines itself to exercise the most finely calibrated morality in the history of the world, should have had at least SOME insight into what was going on in its parishes? Should have dealt with it more honestly? Should have not had a child-rape scandal in the first place?
My point is that the Catholic Church makes some rather large claims for itself. But when there comes a reckoning for the evil it has done, it wants to be held to the same standard as everyone else. You can't claim all of the above and then not take ownership of those claims when confronted with your own failures. Either the Catholic Church is a hierarchy of evolved primates like every other organization on earth, or it is a special organization of evolved primates being guided by god's divine providence. If the Catholic Church wants its claims of special knowledge about the nature of the universe to be taken seriously, it should be expected to behave specially too. It has failed this test repeatedly.
Tough to get excited about the new pope after watching Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence In The House Of God recently.
There is no indication that Bergoglio will end the Catholic Church's genocidally stupid stance on contraception.
Time To Admit It: The Church Has Always Been Right On Birth Control
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-08/politics/31036663_1_sexual-revolution-moral-standards-marriage
Pope Francis appears to be a holy and simple man
Indeed he does.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323393304578360853499727768.html
This is partially true, of course. But isn't it also a bit misleading? Isn't it true to say that the rape and torture of children was institutional, and not some random occurrence or chance artifact that you might expect to find in any large group? Isn't it true to say that the Church hierarchy deliberately shielded child-rapists from secular justice?
Of this there is simply no way for the Church to explain or excuse its disgusting handling of homosexual pederasts among the clergy.
That being stated, the facts of the matter are other than what the liberal gun-grabbing media would have us to believe.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html
Isn't it true to say that the church of "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus," the church that claims to be led by the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Church whose Pope claims for himself the ability to speak infallibly at certain times, the church that imagines itself to be in communication with god and imagines itself to exercise the most finely calibrated morality in the history of the world, should have had at least SOME insight into what was going on in its parishes? Should have dealt with it more honestly? Should have not had a child-rape scandal in the first place?
While there is no excusing the conduct of the Church, one cleric shed at least some light as to one of the reasons JPII may have let things spiral out of control. He was Polish, meaning he was from behind the Iron Curtain. Whenever the Communists wanted to destroy the reputation of a priest or Bishop they would begin by spreading rumours that he was a sexual deviant, a child abuser, a swindler and thief, had many mistresses, and so on. Thus for Pope John Paul II it seems that it may have been a case of 'crying wolf'. He may have unfortunately believed that the secular media of the west was engaging in the same tactic as the communists in the east with their media/propaganda machine.
My point is that the Catholic Church makes some rather large claims for itself. But when there comes a reckoning for the evil it has done, it wants to be held to the same standard as everyone else. You can't claim all of the above and then not take ownership of those claims when confronted with your own failures. Either the Catholic Church is a hierarchy of evolved primates like every other organization on earth, or it is a special organization of evolved primates being guided by God's divine providence. If the Catholic Church wants its claims of special knowledge about the nature of the universe to be taken seriously, it should be expected to behave specially too. It has failed this test repeatedly.
True, but she has also past this test, repeatedly. A result which in fact carries the main weight.
"Pleased to meet you... hope you guessed my name."
"And what frustrates you... is the nature of my game."
I don't buy into the inspiration of his name.
No Jesuit would choose to honor the name of the founder of the Franciscan Order.
Me thinks, instead San Francisco de Xavier, co-founder with Ignacio de Loyola of the Society.
There is no competition between religious orders In general, rather an affectionate respect for different charisms. Dominicans, Franciscans and Carmelites I know help each other out and gladly give respect to saints from each order, they are saints of the Church not the order. Francis of Assisi founded the Order of Friars Minor, but Saint Francis of Assisi is held up as a prime example of Christian holiness for the entire Church.
The pope says he took the name in honor of St Francis of Assisi and that demonstrates his humility further.
I will gladly explain my Catholic perspective on the sexual abuse scandal if anyone is interested but I rarely encounter someone that heaps blame on the entire Church for the horrid failings of a tiny fraction of bishops and priests and who is still interested in hearing any other viewpoint. Let me just say the pope is not a dictator, contrary to how anti-Catholics like to portray him.
Each bishop is given a lot of autonomy and it takes a lot of error and many years before the worldwide Church disciplines a bishop or even a priest. Abuses should have been reported to the police but often the predator priest was shielded by a sympathitic bishop. These clergy were NOT loyal to the Pope or Church doctrine or discipline, or their vows.
JPII and Benedict chipped away at the number of dissenting clergy in the US and Europe and replaced them one by one with more trustworthy bishops and priest. The Church moves slowly and the US is but one of many nations with needs.
It looks like Pope Francis will continue the ongoing purge of dissenting and complicit clergy and restore more and more of the respect due the tens of thousands of clergy and religious who joyfully honor their vows of poverty, celibacy and obedience; and who give decades of quiet service to hundreds of millions of the faithful and those of other faiths.
The abusive clergy are the ones totally out of line from Church teaching and doctrine. On the other hand, from the millions and billions of honest faithful have been elevated thousands of martyrs and Saints who exemplify the vision of holiness the Church was commissioned by Christ to teach and serve.
JPII and Benedict chipped away at the number of dissenting clergy in the US and Europe and replaced them one by one with more trustworthy bishops and priest.
They missed one…
15887
All kidding aside. I like this Pope's Orthodox stance on Catholic traditions. I'm not so sure about his views on capitalism since his views on free markets seem to be a mixed bag (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2013/03/13/is-jorge-bergoglio-the-new-pope-francis-a-capitalist/). Then again, I don't look to the Church to run our economy.
Organized religion is one of the most destructive things that the world has ever known. The violence that has come from it should be a clue.
A lot less violent than institutionalized atheism.
----
Nothing says 'god doesn't have my back' like a pope mobile.
Magic_Salad0892
03-17-13, 04:45
A lot less violent than institutionalized atheism.
----
That's the problem. Beliefs aren't meant to be institutionalized. Somebody could easily breed an extremely violent army based on a religious document.
Actually. That sounds a lot like the Taliban doesn't it?
Nothing says 'god doesn't have my back' like a pope mobile.
God helps those who help themselves.
God helps the team that practices harder, has a better coach, and more naturally talented players.
God won't just give you a fish and he won't teach you how to fish, but if you teach yourself, he'll throw you a (fish) bone here and there.
Basically, don't base your plans around insha'allah.
That's the problem. Beliefs aren't meant to be institutionalized. Somebody could easily breed an extremely violent army based on a religious document.
Actually. That sounds a lot like the Taliban doesn't it?
Fallen human nature. Everyone, whether they admit it or not, worships either God or a god.
The French worshipped the god of "reason" and "enlightenment", and in his name lopped off the heads of tens of thousands.
The Nazis worshipped the god of national socialism and racial purity and gassed millions upon millions.
The Soviets marched to their god of international socialism and atheism and in his name slaughtered tens of millions.
Chairman Mao may have murdered as many as 80 million men, women, and children, in the name of cultural purity, communism and atheism.
Same for Pol Pot, death toll 1.5-2.5 million people.
In the west it is mostly self-worship as god, hence the slaughter of 60 million unborn children in the U.S. alone. It is the worship in the belief that truth is relative and not objective. And the adherents to this religion of self-worship even have their own prayers, as can yet again be seen on several posts on this thread.
Fallen human nature. Everyone, whether they admit it or not, worships either God or a god.
The French worshipped the god of "reason" and "enlightenment", and in his name lopped off the heads of tens of thousands.
The Nazis worshipped the god of national socialism and racial purity and gassed millions upon millions.
The Soviets marched to their god of international socialism and atheism and in his name slaughtered tens of millions.
Chairman Mao may have murdered as many as 80 million men, women, and children, in the name of cultural purity, communism and atheism.
Same for Pol Pot, death toll 1.5-2.5 million people.
In the west it is mostly self-worship as god, hence the slaughter of 60 million unborn children in the U.S. alone. It is the worship in the belief that truth is relative and not objective. And the adherents to this religion of self-worship even have their own prayers, as can yet again be seen on several posts on this thread.
So your definition of a god is anything that is worshipped? But I thought there is only one god and it's God?
So your definition of a god is anything that is worshipped?
Do you actually think that is what I stated, or are you simply, for some reason, pretending that it is? If in fact the latter, why?
Littlelebowski
03-17-13, 06:43
Never mind, **** this thread.
Littlelebowski
03-17-13, 06:44
"Pleased to meet you... hope you guessed my name."
"And what frustrates you... is the nature of my game."
Awesome :D
Math doesn't add up (I know you're counting Communism) when you total up religious wars throughout the centuries.
Actually it does.
Pol Pot, alone, butchered 10-20x as many people, in just 3 and 1/2 years, than died in all the Crusades, and over 350 of the Spanish Inquisition, combined.
I don't know why we're supposed to care so much about a den of child molesters who love to whore around their extravagant, million dollar wardrobes and jewelry. Furthest thing from being Godly, IMO.
I don't know why we're supposed to care so much about a den of child molesters who love to whore around their extravagant, million dollar wardrobes and jewelry. Furthest thing from being Godly, IMO.
The same percentage of clerics have been accused of abuse as any other group, i.e. Rabbi's, dentists, executives, etc, (about 1.5-2%) save one, government, i.e. public school teachers, where it is 2-3x higher. I believe in New York city it is over 7%. And while the cover-up by the Church was and is inexcusable, it pales to the cover-up of the sexual abuse of children by the local and state governments.
And let's not forget, as Ann Coulter best I think put it:
"Despite the growing media consensus that Catholicism causes sodomy, an alternative view -- adopted by the Boy Scouts -- is that sodomites cause sodomy. (Assume all the usual disclaimers here about most gay men not molesting boys, most Muslims being peaceful, and so on.)
It is a fact that the vast majority of the abuser priests -- more than 90 percent -- are accused of molesting teen-age boys. Indeed, the overwhelmingly homosexual nature of the abuse prompted The New York Times to engage in its classic "Where's Waldo" reporting style, in which the sex of the victims is studiedly hidden amid a torrent of genderless words, such as the "teen-ager," the "former student," the "victim" and the "accuser."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter032102.asp
But to deal with your post directly, which priest, bishop, or cardinal, has "a million dollar wardrobe" and a million dollars in jewellery?
The same percentage of clerics have been accused of abuse as any other group, i.e. Rabbi's, dentists, executives, etc, (about 1.5-2%) save one, government, i.e. public school teachers, where it is 2-3x higher. I believe in New York city it is over 7%. And while the cover-up by the Church was and is inexcusable, it pales to the cover-up of the sexual abuse of children by the local and state governments.
And let's not forget, as Ann Coulter best I think put it:
"Despite the growing media consensus that Catholicism causes sodomy, an alternative view -- adopted by the Boy Scouts -- is that sodomites cause sodomy. (Assume all the usual disclaimers here about most gay men not molesting boys, most Muslims being peaceful, and so on.)
It is a fact that the vast majority of the abuser priests -- more than 90 percent -- are accused of molesting teen-age boys. Indeed, the overwhelmingly homosexual nature of the abuse prompted The New York Times to engage in its classic "Where's Waldo" reporting style, in which the sex of the victims is studiedly hidden amid a torrent of genderless words, such as the "teen-ager," the "former student," the "victim" and the "accuser."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter032102.asp
But to deal with your post directly, which priest, bishop, or cardinal, has "a million dollar wardrobe" and a million dollars in jewellery?
Belloc, I'm not Catholic and only loosely consider myself Christian. Having said that, you appear to be a credit to your faith a denomination. Good job so far in this thread.
Tough to get excited about the new pope after watching Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence In The House Of God recently.
This sums up my feelings as well and it is unfortunate. They have no one to blame but themselves and it hurts to hear of the pain too many of these trusted men inflicted.
However considering that youtube videos are often being posted of elementary school children fighting as their elders watch on in delight, this in an era where the cancer of the hip-hop lifestyle and attitude prevails, I won't be writing any thoughtful essays on how misguided true Catholics are or how horrible religion is in general.
montanadave
03-17-13, 09:14
Any religion-oriented thread in GD invariably ends in the same place with the same people debating/arguing/proselytizing the same views.
It's like deja vu all over again.
No Catholics on here?
While I am an diest I have an interest in more formal religions, and pay attention to this stuff.
For me:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/willbrink/tumblr_l7sbx8lkuB1qc8pm4o1_400.gif
Do you actually think that is what I stated, or are you simply, for some reason, pretending that it is? If in fact the latter, why?
+1
It's not really that hard to understand.
--
Belloc, I'm not Catholic and only loosely consider myself Christian. Having said that, you appear to be a credit to your faith a denomination. Good job so far in this thread.
Thanks. It is sad how many on various gun forums are apparently really no different than the gun-grabbers in the media and congress in their tactics. They state something not remotely true or historically factual, and when confronted with the truth and reality, they simply choose to ignore it.
Many people bash the Church for the Crusades, and there was much wrong done by individual Crusaders. But the First Crusade was not launched until after over 350 years of almost constant Islamic aggression and conquest against Christian peoples and lands in North Africa and the Middle East. And the reason the Church got involved in the first place was because the threat of Islamic invasion of Europe itself had become very real, but yet still the princes and kings would not put aside their differences and come together to address the threat, so the Pope intervened and was able to help them form a European military alliance
People bash the Church for the Inquisition, and much wrong was done, but the Spanish Inquisition was only launched after the Spanish, after some 700 years, were finally able to expel the armies of Islam from their lands, and they feared that Islamic subversives were attempting to sneak back into Spain. And it is important to remember that there were two Inquisitions in Spain, the one conducted by the government, and a different one conducted by the Church. And as one should expect, it was the Inquisition run by the State that was responsible for 99% of all the horror, terror, and injustice, that liberals and other haters of Christianity falsely attribute to the Catholic Church.
People bash the Church for the Galileo affair, and the Church handled the situation rather poorly. But Galileo was actually initially given permission to teach his theory (which was anyway half wrong as the sun was also not the center of the universe) as long as he did not teach it as an established scientific fact. Why did the Church not want him to teach it as an established scientific fact? Because when asked if he could prove his theory, he replied, "No." So they then said, ok just teach it as a theory then, because you cannot yet prove it, and most all these other astronomers over here, and for the last 4000 years say you are wrong, but if you ever can prove it, do please come back with your evidence. But that rather wounded his pride and he decided to insult a few highly placed bishops who because of their own pride would have none of thus they decided to put him on trial. That was of course a rather bone-headed move on the part of these few Bishops, but I myself am not altogether uncertain that if insulting the pride of a few bishops would cause them to also put me on trial, the end result being like Galileo simply sent away to "contemplate my sins" in a Villa, in Tuscany, I would myself not be putting pen to paper.
These same liberals scream and whine that the Catholic Church should not in any way be involved in such things as higher education at universities, and that the history of the Church has always been against education and learning.
To which I reply thus: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0321.htm
And somehow the Church is "against science".
http://wordonfire.org/getmedia/5b4e1fb1-299b-40ce-81fb-60b6449ea6d7/f-f--lemaitre-einstein.aspx
Everyone knows the guy on the right, but almost no one knows who the Catholic priest is on the left. Hint: the Big Bang Theory was his.
Many claim that the Church is "against women".
Yet from the very beginning of the life of the Christian Church on Earth, from the 1st century, the very first Christians would risk everything to rescue infant girls abandoned by the Roman aristocracy on trash piles outside the walls of Rome. Baby girls left to die for the sole reason that they simply were not boys. But those first Christians knew that those baby girls were of equal worth and dignity in the sight of God.
I once asked my Comparative Religions professor if before the coming onto the world stage the advent of the Christian faith, had there been any other religion, or civilisation, or culture, in all of history, where a man would lay down his life, would 'take the bullet' for a woman, not because he knew her, or she was his sister, or mother, or wife, or from the same lands, or people, or religion, or clan, or shared some other trait, but solely for the reason that she was a woman. He thought about it, and then some more, and finally said he could not think of any, but would have to think more on it and would let me know if he had thought of any. He never did.
Chivalry was born in the heart of Christian Europe, and because Europe was Christian.
a0cake chooses his words as economically and attentively as anyone on any forum. There is also always the air of sobriety in his posting. Yet when it comes to this and similar topics, even he dives unfortunately headfirst into histrionic waters.
My first degree was in philosophy, and I consider the pursuit of knowledge one of life's more sublime joys. The constantly recurring bit of fact in my education was simple but profound, that being that our understanding of the individual person as individual, was the direct result of the coming of Christ.
I used to be Catholic. I don't play that game any more. It isn't for me.
Though I was already non-religious at this point, I will never forget how one of my marksmanship mentors (USMC ground-pounder) told me that after he came back from Vietnam, he wouldn't go to church any more.
Thanks. It is sad how many on various gun forums are really no different from the gun-grabbers in the media or in congress in their tactics. They state something not remotely true or historically factual, and when confronted with the truth and reality they simply choose to ignore it.
People bash the Church for the Crusades, and there was much wrong done by Crusaders. But the first Crusade was not launched until after over 350 years of almost not-stop Islamic war and conquest against Christian peoples and lands in North Africa and the Middle East. And the reason the Pope got involved in the first place was because the threat of Islamic invasion of Europe itself was now very real, yet still the princes and kings would not put aside their bickering to get together and form an alliance to stop them.
People bash the Church for the Inquisition, and much wrong was done, but the Spanish Inquisition was only launched after the Spanish, after some 700 years, were finally able to expel the armies of Islam from their lands, and they feared that Islamic subversives were attempting to sneak back into Spain.
People bash the Church for the Galileo affair, and the Church handled the situation rather poorly. But Galileo was actually initially given permission to teach his theory (which was anyway half wrong as the sun was also not the center of the universe) as long as he did not teach it as a scientific fact. Why did the Church not want him to teach it as an established fact? Because when asked if he could prove his theory, he replied, "No." So they said, ok just teach it as a theory, because you cannot prove it, and most all these other astronomers over here, and for the last 4000 years say you are wrong, but if you ever can prove it, come back with your proof. But that rather bent his nose the wrong way and he decided to insult a few highly placed bishops who would have none of that and decided to put him on trial. Now, that was of course a bone-headed move, but I myself am not altogether uncertain that if insulting a few bishops would cause them to put me on trial, the end result being, like Galileo being sent away to "contemplate my sins" in a Villa, in Tuscany, and considering I have actually visited Tuscany, if I would not be putting pen to paper right now.
Dear Bishop so-and-so,
I have a theory that the planets do not move around the sun, but instead your substantial girth, and would like to present my theory in person to your Excellence.
Your humble servant,
Belloc,
P.S. Don't even think of sending me to live in a Villa in Tuscany.
Now some might screech that the Church should not be involved in such things as higher education at universities.
Ahem: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0321.htm
Yet somehow the Church is "against science".
http://wordonfire.org/getmedia/5b4e1fb1-299b-40ce-81fb-60b6449ea6d7/f-f--lemaitre-einstein.aspx
Everyone knows the guy on the right, but almost no one knows who the Catholic priest is on the left. Hint: the Big Bang Theory was his.
Everyone thinks the Church is "against women".
Yet from the very beginning, from the 1st century, the very first Christians would risk everything to rescue infant girls abandoned by Roman aristocracy on trash piles outside the walls of Rome to die for the sole reason that they were not boys. But those first Christians knew that those baby girls were of equal worth and dignity in the sight of God.
I once asked my Comparative Religions professor if before the coming onto the world stage the advent of the Christian faith, had there been any other religion, or civilisation, or culture, in all of history, where a man would lay down his life, would 'take the bullet' for a woman, not because he knew her, or she was his sister, or mother, or wife, or from the same lands, or people, or religion, or clan, or shared some other characteristic, but solely for the reason that she was a woman. He thought a good long time, and finally said he could not think of any, but would have to think on it some more and would get let me know if he thought of any. He never did.
Chivalry was born in the heart of Christian Europe, and seems to have gotten it start from the Catholic tradition of Marian devotion.
For whatever reason, when it comes to the Catholic Church in specific, and Christianity in general, it seems people simply revert to emotional adolescents.
a0cake chooses his words as economically and attentively as anyone on any forum I have ever seen. I have never read a post of his that uses a single word more than was necessary, or to ever misplace a term. (As opposed to SteyrAUG who seems Hell bent in his mission to convince everyone that he is emotionally about 11.) Yet here, even he easily allows his emotions to subordinate his irascible appetite, and he dives regrettably and embarrassingly headfirst into the river Histrionic.
My first degree was in philosophy, thus I consider the pursuit of knowledge one of life's more sublime joys. The recurring theme explicit in my education was simple, that being that our understanding of the individual person as individual, was the direct result of the coming of the Christ. But I will willingly weigh propositions to the contrary.
Most excellent Sir!
C4
Smuckatelli
03-17-13, 15:30
There is no indication that Bergoglio will end the Catholic Church's genocidally stupid stance on contraception.
The Catholic Church is pro life.......how is that genocide? :confused:
The Catholic Church is pro life.......how is that genocide? :confused:
Telling people in AIDS infested countries in Africa that using condoms is a sin equates to genocide if you ask me.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
Smuckatelli
03-17-13, 15:58
Telling people in AIDS infested countries in Africa that using condoms is a sin equates to genocide if you ask me.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
How is preventing birth...not a form of genocide?
Genocide?
Ask the Africans and the whole of the New World inhabitants about Papal Bulls allowing them to be classified (or declaring them) property to be "owned" by Western nations.
Long time ago?
Yep.
Have they ever rescinded those Papal Bulls?
No. Not to my knowledge.
What of the 1970's junta in Argentina... What role did our current pope play in that as he was there at that time. I recall two clergymen being captured and tortured but the details are fuzzy. In total 22,000 persons were "disappeared" in Argentina.
In my opinion ALL large organizations are corrupt at the top.
And those at the very bottom throw conniption fits at the thought of their organization being less than stellar.
Quite silly, but that's my take on it - and Vatican City (which has MANY bones in it's closet).
Torquemada was not trying to find Muslims, either...
Alaskapopo
03-17-13, 16:28
How is preventing birth...not a form of genocide?
Seriously!
Smuckatelli
03-17-13, 19:34
Genocide?
The Church preaches marriage, no contraception, and many children. There is no way that anyone can say that it is genocide for the Church saying no contraception.
And those at the very bottom throw conniption fits at the thought of their organization being less than stellar.
That is the same logic that the anti-gun crowd uses against us. A very small percentage of people us gun in a criminal way and they see the pro-gun people throwing conniption fits.
Alaskapopo
03-17-13, 19:49
The Church preaches marriage, no contraception, and many children. There is no way that anyone can say that it is genocide for the Church saying no contraception.
That is the same logic that the anti-gun crowd uses against us. A very small percentage of people us gun in a criminal way and they see the pro-gun people throwing conniption fits.
While its not genocide its irresponsible to encourage poor people to have more kids than they can afford to raise. It just puts more people on welfare and in third world countries it just means more kids starving to death.
Pat
Again: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-08/politics/31036663_1_sexual-revolution-moral-standards-marriage
"The Church teaches that love, marriage, sex, and procreation are all things that [God intended to] belong together. That's it."
For the Church to teach anything other than this would be for her to teach a lie.
While its not genocide its irresponsible to encourage poor people to have more kids than they can afford to raise. It just puts more people on welfare and in third world countries it just means more kids starving to death.
Pat
Edited. My words could have been more charitably chosen.
What however is the culprit, is not the command of a loving God, be fruitful and multiply, but of the cynical and bloated policies of the welfare state. Welfare, as presently conceived and implemented, is simply a malignant cancer. How many 1st world United States citizens are presently on food stamps, almost 50 million?
Magic_Salad0892
03-17-13, 20:09
Again: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-08/politics/31036663_1_sexual-revolution-moral-standards-marriage
"The Church teaches that love, marriage, sex, and procreation are all things that [God intended to] belong together. That's it."
For the Church to teach anything other than this would be for her to teach a lie.
In the Church's opinion, and according to the bible. (Which is a book that's been re-translated, and edited hundreds of times, and are originally stories told by men (fallible) by word of mouth, 30 years or so after the events supposedly happened.)
Saying that procreation, love, marriage, and sex belong together is a statement that spits in the face of science. Marriage is a man made institution, and love is brain chemicals. Biologically speaking, the only purpose of sex is procreation, and therefore the proliferation of a species. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't mean to put your beliefs down, and I respect them. But I don't like being told how to live, or that I'm going to hell for how I do live. By the Church, or anybody else.
Sometimes I pray that I'm wrong about Christianity, as it seems like a nice concept with some decent morals. But I can't buy into it. I just can't.
I don't know if it's worth it for me to post in this thread much more, because I know my opinions about religion don't mean much to anybody here, or anybody else at all except for me. But I felt compelled to drop in for a sec.
Magic_Salad0892
03-17-13, 20:11
I'd like to see your proof that he's wrong.
His logic seems to check out, in my opinion.
I'd like to see your proof that he's wrong.
His logic seems to check out, in my opinion.
Logic? There is none in his post. But not the littlest amount. Look into why in fact there is hunger in Africa. It has nothing to do with family size.
Magic_Salad0892
03-17-13, 20:18
Logic? There is none in his post. But not the littlest amount. Look into why in fact there is hunger in Africa. It has nothing to do with family size.
I agree that it has nothing to do with family size, but more children definetely would make it worse. I'm sure.
In the Church's opinion, and according to the bible. (Which is a book that's been re-translated, and edited hundreds of times, and are originally stories told by men (fallible) by word of mouth, 30 years or so after the events supposedly happened.)
That it has been translated into perhaps hundreds of languages hardly qualifies as having been "re-translated hundreds of times". I have studied both biblical latin and greek and know well the accuracy of the translations. On the other hand I have no idea just how much you have studied the material.
Saying that procreation, love, marriage, and sex belong together is a statement that spits in the face of science. Marriage is a man made institution, and love is brain chemicals. Biologically speaking, the only purpose of sex is procreation, and therefore the proliferation of a species. Nothing more, nothing less.
The problem is, quite simply, that you have no evidence or scientific proof of any of this. It is simply your own unscientific opinion. However if in fact you can offer scientific conclusive proof that marriage is not a Divine institution, and that love is nothing at all more than what you claim it to be, than I should be interested to see you present it.
I don't mean to put your beliefs down, and I respect them. But I don't like being told how to live, or that I'm going to hell for how I do live. By the Church, or anybody else.
I actually somehow doubt this. So the role of a father to teach his son "how to live", i.e. how to conduct his affairs with honour, how to treat women, what is expected of a man, etc, is not something you believe in, and you would turn your back on your own father and say "I don't like being told how to live!"?
Sometimes I pray that I'm wrong about Christianity, as it seems like a nice concept with some decent morals. But I can't buy into it. I just can't.
What is your stumbling block?
I agree that it has nothing to do with family size, but more children definetely would make it worse. I'm sure.
Don't be.
I spent the better part of a year researching the reasons for a paper I was submitting.
Go and read a couple of dozen books, countless articles and reports, and even go to Africa a couple of times, then come back and we'll talk.
That is the same logic that the anti-gun crowd uses against us. A very small percentage of people us gun in a criminal way and they see the pro-gun people throwing conniption fits.
No it isn't... Not even remotely.
You're comparing apples and crawfish étouffée.
Belloc, I'm not ducking your arguments, in case you were wondering. I've got nearly a hundred pages of writing to do and a Wednesday deadline creeping up on me. If this thread somehow isn't locked by the time I'm done, I promise I'll get around to responding (not to mention that I'll have to recant my position on the non-actuality of miracles ;) )
Alaskapopo
03-17-13, 20:59
Is there even one subject where you spend at least 30 seconds researching before posting, or do for some reason believe that posting out of breathtaking ignorance somehow lends weight?
Quite the contrary I know my topics and I refuse to be a sheep following with blind faith.
Pat
Magic_Salad0892
03-17-13, 21:00
That it has been translated into perhaps hundreds of languages hardly qualifies as having been "re-translated hundreds of times". I have studied both biblical latin and greek and know well the accuracy of the translations. On the other hand I have no idea just how much you have studied the material.
I haven't specifically studied translations. But I've studies history, and everything I've ever read states that translations ended up changing many meanings, and it's well known that the bible has been edited, and many parts are gone. I believe the Library of Alexandria housed many of those documents. Like the Gospel of Eve, and some other ones.
The problem is, quite simply, that you have no evidence or scientific proof of any of this. It is simply your own unscientific opinion. However if in fact you can offer scientific conclusive proof that marriage is not a Divine institution, and that love is nothing at all more than what you claim it to be, than I should be interested to see you present it.
To the best of my knowledge, marriage was originated to divide property. And as for love = brain chemicals, well... that's heavily documented. I believe that scientists have even manipulated these chemicals before.
Phenyl Ethylamine
Dopamine
Norepinephren
Vasopressin
Serotonin
Combinations of the above.
I actually somehow doubt this. So the role of a father to teach his son "how to live", i.e. how to conduct his affairs with honour, how to treat women, what is expected of a man, etc, is not something you believe in, and you would turn your back on your own father and say "I don't like being told how to live!"?
Yes, I would. It's one of the reasons I haven't spoken to my father in 6 years, and probably never will again. However, there's a difference between advice from a parent, and "DON'T USE CONDOMS OR YOU BURN IN HELL!"
What is your stumbling block?
Believing anything in the bible at all, without scientific proof. I believe in God most of the time (though it logically doesn't make any sense, for me.). It's hard to explain.
I'll go ahead and post this, despite the fact that I'm terrible at debating.
Magic_Salad0892
03-17-13, 21:02
Go and read a couple of dozen books, countless articles and reports, and even go to Africa a couple of times, then come back and we'll talk.
Or you can just give me a reason why children or population has nothing to do with it, so I can do some researching of my own.
Alaskapopo
03-17-13, 21:03
Logic? There is none in his post. But not the littlest amount. Look into why in fact there is hunger in Africa. It has nothing to do with family size.
How can you say that it has everything to do with the number of mouths to feed. I am all for having wanted and planned for children. i am not for forcing people to have children who can not afford to raise them.
Pat
No it isn't... Not even remotely.
Uh, yes it is. Exactly.
--
Smuckatelli
03-17-13, 21:30
No it isn't... Not even remotely.
My friend, it is. I don't know you well enough to convince you but I see no link between the Church pro life via no contraception equals genocide.
This is the same type of logic that the left uses to promote gun grabbing. The AR-15 and high capacity magazines have no use for civilians. Prior military suffer from PTSD...the excuses go on just as:
"those at the very bottom throw conniption fits at the thought of their organization being less than stellar"
There is no requirement for you or anyone else to be Catholic or like Catholics but to pigeon hole the "very bottom" as being associated with the very few that committed crimes is no different that the left associating my lifestlye as dangerous to the public because I am a veteran and I own guns.
Smuckatelli
03-17-13, 21:39
Saying that procreation, love, marriage, and sex belong together is a statement that spits in the face of science. Marriage is a man made institution, and love is brain chemicals. Biologically speaking, the only purpose of sex is procreation, and therefore the proliferation of a species. Nothing more, nothing less.
I wouldn't say that it spits in the face of science....more like it puts in place a doctrine that supports science.
The part that I put in bold pretty much sums up the Church's doctrine.
As far as the Catholic Church's views in general are concerned, they have a pretty good online library at http://www.vatican.va/archive/index.htm
For science, they do have a very extensive amount of information here: http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en.html
Among the scientific studies from last year funded by the Vatican were on stem cell research (including embryonic stem cells) and neurosciences; and in 2011, sub-nuclear physics. None of these involved book or witch burning, excommunication, or torture and neither used the guise of science to "prove" any Church doctrine. They were objective.
The modern Church generally has a peaceful coexistance with science and can be seen as actually embracing it. Faith is actually part of the scientific process when you look at theoretical advances in science. Someone has to envision something not provable, observable, or in some cases easily believable to propose a theory. When that theory can be proven, observed, explained, documented, etc. it becomes sound science. During the process of discovery, it is faith. Until the lunar eclipse was observed that "proved" Einstein's theories on general relativity a few years later, it was only a matter of faith in Einstein's calculations and suppositions. Belief in theory=faith.
Faith has some of the answers to things that can't be proven or observed yet in science, but current scientific exploration and theory shows that the roads look to be converging.
In the Church's opinion, and according to the bible. (Which is a book that's been re-translated, and edited hundreds of times, and are originally stories told by men (fallible) by word of mouth, 30 years or so after the events supposedly happened.)
Saying that procreation, love, marriage, and sex belong together is a statement that spits in the face of science. Marriage is a man made institution, and love is brain chemicals. Biologically speaking, the only purpose of sex is procreation, and therefore the proliferation of a species. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't mean to put your beliefs down, and I respect them. But I don't like being told how to live, or that I'm going to hell for how I do live. By the Church, or anybody else.
Sometimes I pray that I'm wrong about Christianity, as it seems like a nice concept with some decent morals. But I can't buy into it. I just can't.
I don't know if it's worth it for me to post in this thread much more, because I know my opinions about religion don't mean much to anybody here, or anybody else at all except for me. But I felt compelled to drop in for a sec.
Is it possible that you are confusing love and lust? To me, lust is the intuitive drive to procreate. It is what makes me look twice when that booty walks by - millions of years of evolution designed to propagate the species and preserve one's DNA.
On the other hand, love is opposite of self-preservation. It is the conscious sacrifice of the self for the good of another. At times it is as complex as any modern marriage, or as simple as the split second decision that causes a soldier to jump on a grenade.
As for the buy in - that can be a hard one. Personally, I focus my attention on the parts of the NT that are most attributed to the actual actions and statement of Jesus. I pay special attention to commonalities in the Gospels such as the Sermon on the Mount. This keeps me grounded in the basics which is a good place to return to whenever the details start to get the best of me - no matter what aspect of life is the issue.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-18-13, 03:46
Nothing says 'god doesn't have my back' like a pope mobile.
Who fears death when it is just being called to the 'Home Office'?
That's the problem. Beliefs aren't meant to be institutionalized. Somebody could easily breed an extremely violent army based on a religious document.
Actually. That sounds a lot like the Taliban doesn't it?
I think a major problem with Islam is that you get these Iman's that can send out Fatwas and there seems to be only a loose amount of control on them. Catholicism can't be blamed for being institutionalized and consistent. One comes with the other.
Saying that procreation, love, marriage, and sex belong together is a statement that spits in the face of science. Marriage is a man made institution, and love is brain chemicals. Biologically speaking, the only purpose of sex is procreation, and therefore the proliferation of a species. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sounds like a great Hallmark Card for Valentines Day.... ;)
To be serious, Benedict did a really nice piece recently on the concept of love from a emotional/spirital place and from a physical place. He said a married couple should have both kinds of love- not something you'd expect- and get this, the physical concept borrowed heavily from Jewish thought and writings.
To extend on the birth control issue, the stem cell research position of the Church makes alot more sense when you actually read some of their writings on it. Stem cell research gets really gnarly, really fast if you aren't really careful.
Quite the contrary I know my topics and I refuse to be a sheep following with blind faith.
Pat
If that be the case, then it is simply good manners to demonstrate as much when posting.
(not to mention that I'll have to recant my position on the non-actuality of miracles ;) )
Good timing that, considering we may soon have the first Catholic Saint/Medal of Honor winner.
http://images.comcorpusa.com/440/330/crop/kwkt/media/korean_chalain_kapaun.png
http://media.kansas.com/smedia/2013/02/22/17/39/1niT0i.SlMa.80.jpeg
http://www.usnews.com/pubdbimages/image/45286/FE_DA130311kapaun425x283.jpg
http://jodipyle.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/602587_10151219767283328_1929553649_n.jpg
http://www.kansas.com/kapaun/
How can you say that it has everything to do with the number of mouths to feed. I am all for having wanted and planned for children. i am not for forcing people to have children who can not afford to raise them.
Pat
No, it doesn't. My paper was on how foreign aid was simply being counter-productive. The western nations, especially the US, constantly dumping megatons of subsidised foodstuffs in Africa destroys the ability for African farmers to compete or make a living, and so they fold. Combine that with the use of food by warlords and warring factions as a weapon of war, and you get starvation and death.
I haven't specifically studied translations. But I've studies history, and everything I've ever read states that translations ended up changing many meanings,
For example?
and it's well known that the bible has been edited, and many parts are gone.
What parts are well known to be "gone"?
I believe the Library of Alexandria housed many of those documents. Like the Gospel of Eve, and some other ones.
Of the Library at Alexandria can be said this with any certainty, it was once there, and now isn't. However if you have chanced across some discoveries giving strong indication for a so-called "Gospel of Eve" being stored there, again, I should be most interested to see it, and I am quite sure not only I.
To the best of my knowledge, marriage was originated to divide property.
That is the great thing about knowledge, it can grow.
And as for love = brain chemicals, well... that's heavily documented. I believe that scientists have even manipulated these chemicals before.
Again, what scientific proof do you have that love is absolutely nothing more than what you claim it is?
Phenyl Ethylamine
Dopamine
Norepinephren
Vasopressin
Serotonin
Combinations of the above.
"For God so loved the world, i.e. He possessed a combination of Phenyl Ethylamine, Dopamine, Norepinephren, Vasopressin, and Serotonin, that he sent His only begotten Son..."
I rather think not.
Yes, I would. It's one of the reasons I haven't spoken to my father in 6 years, and probably never will again. However, there's a difference between advice from a parent, and "DON'T USE CONDOMS OR YOU BURN IN HELL!"
In philosophy it is most important to understand what is meant by the terms we use. So what do Catholics (and I think most all Christians) mean by "Hell" or "burn in Hell".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8zhnooySk4
And sorry to learn of the deep riff between you and your father. I pray it not remain so.
I'll go ahead and post this, despite the fact that I'm terrible at debating.
You keep your wits and good sense about you when debating, not even I can honestly always lay claim to that.
I wouldn't say that it spits in the face of science....more like it puts in place a doctrine that supports science.
The part that I put in bold
"Biologically speaking, the only purpose of sex is procreation, and therefore the proliferation of a species."
pretty much sums up the Church's doctrine.
The Church's doctrine is quite a bit more than that, because we are quite a bit more than simply biological entities.
http://img2.imagesbn.com/p/9781928832447_p0_v1_s260x420.JPG
http://www.amazon.com/Man-Woman-Meaning-Love-Marriage/dp/192883244X
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjOKMUFB7VU
http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/c/images/2013/03/04/284308/size0.jpg
Smuckatelli
03-18-13, 07:41
The Church's doctrine is quite a bit more than that, because we are quite a bit more than simply biological entities.
I know the doctrine is more detailed than that but when you peel the onion.......the end state is proliferation.
I'll go ahead and post this, despite the fact that I'm terrible at debating.
You did just fine. The problem with discussing organized religion, is the fact that many are indoctrinated from the age of 6-8 years old. It makes debating them difficult because they only have the ability to view the topic through the prism that they have studied and learned to believe.
Anyone that can condone the churches stance on condoms is an idiot, considering the FACT there is no life to even protect at that point.
Anyone who can defend the church in any way shape or form, for the harm they have caused to children is an idiot, not to mention the fact that it is morally wrong. If anyone was to defend the molestation of children outside of the context of the Catholic church they would be ridiculed, and rightfully so. You will find that they always bring mathematics into the discussion to make it appear as though it is the "norm" in society. They leave out the fact that these men are supposed to be men of God and intermediaries between you and God.
They will always use the same ".gov's have killed as many people as religion has killed" argument, which shows me that they don't even understand the context of the statement. They will blindly defend the Church at all cost, instead of simply accepting reality without the need to diminish the harm that has been called under the name of religion.
Anyone who has studied the bible (and yes, I have actually read it on multiple occasions and studied it in Greek and Hebrew, not by choice but because I was forced to growing up) and can still believe that you need intermediaries between you and Christ/God hasn't read much of the new testament.
How anyone can't understand that the Bible was a book inspired by God, but written by men who are fallible is beyond me. If Christ had penned it, we could have a different discussion. The simple facts are what they are...
Organized religion is exclusionary and divisive. This thread is an excellent example of it.
I try and live my life, and raise my children with biblical principles, but I don't need a bible nor a church to do so. Your personal relationship with your deity is just that, personal. It doesn't require people to have other men or a church as intermediaries between them and their God.
I know the doctrine is more detailed than that but when you peel the onion.......the end state is proliferation.
It is not that it is more detailed, but that it is much more substantive.
Details are simply the accidents, but that which are the substantive qualities are its essences.
Smuckatelli
03-18-13, 08:13
It is not that it is more detailed, but that it is much more substantive.
Details are simply the accidents, but that which are the substantive qualities are its essences.
We are on the same page.
I try and live my life, and raise my children with biblical principles, but I don't need a bible nor a church to do so.
Everything, and I mean every single last syllable, of what you wrote could be deconstructed as so much self-serving nonsensical incoherent contradictory gooblygook by even a first year philosophy or theology student.
I am going to hazard a guess that you are the product of government education and thus have been indoctrinated by the State from the age of 6.
In any case, just how exactly would you raise your children with "biblical principles" if there were never such thing as the Bible?
Originally Posted by eodinert View Post
Nothing says 'god doesn't have my back' like a pope mobile.
God helps those who help themselves.
So god won't protect the pope, unless he has a pope mobile? If he's got a pope mobile, he doesn't really need god then, does he?
Everything, and I mean every single last syllable, of what you wrote could be deconstructed as so much self-serving nonsensical incoherent contradictory gooblygook by even a first year philosophy or theology student.
I am going to hazard a guess that you are the product of government education and thus have been indoctrinated by the State from the age of 6.
In any case, just how exactly would you raise your children with "biblical principles" if there were never such thing as the Bible?
His intellect provides him with a moral compass so that the Bible is no longer needed. The rest of us are idiots...
So god won't protect the pope, unless he has a pope mobile? If he's got a pope mobile, he doesn't really need god then, does he?
God does protect the Pope...with a Popemobile. ;)
So god won't protect the pope, unless he has a pope mobile? If he's got a pope mobile, he doesn't really need god then, does he?
Oh for the love of...:rolleyes:
http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/.W1Uh33HlCOHQA1QV.tfzw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MTk5ODtjcj0xO2N3PTI4NzI7ZHg9MDtkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcDtoPTQzOTtxPTg1O3c9NjMw/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/003b623529ab551a1b0f6a70670033b4.jpg
1. The inclosed papal vehicle was not the Pope's idea.
2. The Pope often uses an open-air "Popemobile".
http://d2jkk5z9de9jwi.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/francis_greeting_thisone-440x304.jpg
3. I rather think the Pope has no need of advice from any of us as to what his relationship with God should be.
http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/gty_pope_francis_pays_bill_jef_ss_130315_ssh.jpg
"The Director of the Holy See’s press office also revealed another incident that made clear Pope Francis’s desire to avoid pomp when it came to the ride back to the Santa Marta Hotel after his election. He said a “special papal limousine” with the number plates SCV I had been prepared for the new Pope but he declined to ride in it back to the hotel, saying he preferred to go back in the bus along with all the other cardinals."
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/03/14/pope_francis_pays_his_hotel_bill,_avoids_pomp_and_visits_chape/en1-673443
So he takes the bus after being elected Pope, so as to personally pay his hotel bill and pick up his luggage himself.
Liking him more every day.
Everything, and I mean every single last syllable, of what you wrote could be deconstructed as so much self-serving nonsensical incoherent contradictory gooblygook by even a first year philosophy or theology student.
Now you're getting carried away with your criticisms and also flat out wrong. This is the kind of crap that will end the discussion for everyone and gives some faithful a bad name.
In any case, just how exactly would you raise your children with "biblical principles" if there were never such thing as the Bible?
Check again...
How anyone can't understand that the Bible was a book inspired by God, but written by men who are fallible is beyond me. If Christ had penned it, we could have a different discussion.
I can't stand being told I don't I don't worship the right way when meantime I'll do 3x more for society as a whole that week than the idealistic fool pointing the finger at me.
So he takes the bus after being elected Pope, so as to personally pay his hotel bill and pick up his luggage himself.
Liking him more every day.
Agreed. He seems like an good man.
Magic_Salad0892
03-18-13, 09:15
For example?
I'll start with the simple. Jesus Christ's name. And that he had brothers, and sisters. Though I think the brothers, and sisters thing was corrected over time, as the bible I have includes it.
What parts are well known to be "gone"?
Hard to say what they are if they're gone, huh? I'm sure the church of England would know though.
Though "The Book Of The Wars Of The Lord" is supposedly among them.
http://frumheretic.blogspot.com/2008/07/book-of-wars-of-lord.html
That's a blog, but it explains what I'm talking about.
Of the Library at Alexandria can be said this with any certainty, it was once there, and now isn't. However if you have chanced across some discoveries giving strong indication for a so-called "Gospel of Eve" being stored there, again, I should be most interested to see it, and I am quite sure not only I.
4th Century Church officials believed it existed. And by "believed" I mean "burned every copy there was".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Eve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphanius_of_Salamis
I know. Wikipedia, and all...
That is the great thing about knowledge, it can grow.
Then please enlighten me.
Again, what scientific proof do you have that love is absolutely nothing more than what you claim it is?
The fact that it can be narrowed down to chemicals, and can be manipulated isn't enough?
"For God so loved the world, i.e. He possessed a combination of Phenyl Ethylamine, Dopamine, Norepinephren, Vasopressin, and Serotonin, that he sent His only begotten Son..."
I rather think not.
If there was scientific proof that God existed you'd have a point. But I understand what you mean.
In philosophy it is most important to understand what is meant by the terms we use. So what do Catholics (and I think most all Christians) mean by "Hell" or "burn in Hell".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8zhnooySk4
I apologize, the computer I'm on at the moment can't run YouTube. So I'll have to get back to that later. Though the point is, it's still a threat. Which is hardly Christ-like. (Though in the bible, he did threaten people.)
And sorry to learn of the deep riff between you and your father. I pray it not remain so.
Thanks. Maybe one day.
You keep your wits and good sense about you when debating, not even I can honestly always lay claim to that.
I appreciate the compliment.
Now you're getting carried away with your criticisms and also flat out wrong. This is the kind of crap that will end the discussion for everyone and gives some faithful a bad name.
Selective criticism reflects rather poorly on you. The man called all of us who actually believe the teachings of our faith "idiots", yet you somehow apparently don't believe that "kind of crap" out of bounds. :rolleyes:
And no, I was not wrong, my criticism was spot on, which is why I suspect you did not attempt to refute any of it.
Selective criticism reflects rather poorly on you. The man called all of us who actually believe the teachings of our faith "idiots", yet you somehow apparently don't believe that "kind of crap" out of bounds. :rolleyes:
Personally I would not have used the term "idiots", but what he is clearly referring to are those who follow so blindly that they overlook common sensibility at times. This can and often does happen.
Belloc I'm in real estate and met a man at a tract of land in the area yesterday that he may purchase and develop into a mid-sized housing project. Since yesterday was of course Sunday, do I deserve to be stoned to death?
Personally I would not have used the term "idiots", but what he is clearly referring to are those who follow so blindly that they overlook common sensibility at times.
No, he wasn't. And you are being less than honest in attempting to claim otherwise.
His exact quote:
"Anyone that can condone the churches stance on condoms is an idiot."
Belloc I'm in real estate and met a man at a tract of land in the area yesterday that he may purchase and develop into a mid-sized housing project. Since yesterday was of course Sunday, do I deserve to be stoned to death?
That rather depends, what rates did you offer him?
No, he wasn't. And you are being less than honest in attempting to claim otherwise.
His exact quote:
"Anyone that can condone the churches stance on condoms is an idiot."
That's exactly what I am talking about. If it serves the population better on several levels for them to use condoms then let them use condoms for heaven's sake.
That rather depends, what rates did you offer him?
None, a realtor does not offer financing. Now are you going to answer my question?
That's exactly what I am talking about. If it serves the population better on several levels for them to use condoms then let them use condoms for heaven's sake.
None, a realtor does not offer financing. Now are you going to answer my question?
Only after you answer for yourself concerning your statement defending a deliberate and malicious attack against faithful Catholics and pious Christians as 'idiots'.
Only after you answer for yourself concerning your rather dishonest statement defending the attack against Catholics as "idiots".
I said I would not have used the term "idiots", nor did I endorse it. I did however clarify that it is foolish to follow a counterproductive path.
You are obviously deflecting and likely feel uncomfortable answering my simple question, so with that I wish you a good day.
I'll start with the simple. Jesus Christ's name.
What about it?
And that he had brothers, and sisters. Though I think the brothers, and sisters thing was corrected over time, as the bible I have includes it.
http://www.catholic.com/documents/bad-aramaic-made-easy
Hard to say what they are if they're gone, huh? I'm sure the church of England would know though.
Though "The Book Of The Wars Of The Lord" is supposedly among them.
That's a blog, but it explains what I'm talking about.
Not really. So a non-canonical book of the ancient world seems to have been lost. And?
4th Century Church officials believed it existed. And by "believed" I mean "burned every copy there was".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Eve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphanius_of_Salamis
Again, rumours of a non-canonical book surrounded by unhistorical supposition, gossip, and innuendo.
What of it?
The fact that it can be narrowed down to chemicals, and can be manipulated isn't enough?
To prove conclusively that love is nothing more than that? No, it is not enough. It isn't even in the same universe of enough. Unless of course you are a materialist, but then you would have to state on a gun forum that you reject the claim that there is an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. Proceed at your own discretion.
If there was scientific proof that God existed you'd have a point. But I understand what you mean.
The scientific method is entirely limited to describing only that which can be measured, i.e. material reality.
I apologize, the computer I'm on at the moment can't run YouTube. So I'll have to get back to that later. Though the point is, it's still a threat. Which is hardly Christ-like. (Though in the bible, he did threaten people.)
Let me know when you have had the chance.
I said I would not have used the term "idiots", nor did I endorse it. I did however clarify that it is foolish to follow a counterproductive path.
Really, you are actually going to claim that is the full story?
1. You deliberately ignore his vicious insult against faithful Catholics and other Christians..
2. as well as disingenuously attempted to deny that that is not exactly what he did, and indeed intended to do..
3. while at the same time labelling my post "crap" and "also flat our wrong," but yet failed in the always appreciated courtesy of actually attempting demonstrate just how any of what I wrote was in error.
You are obviously deflecting and likely feel uncomfortable answering my simple question, so with that I wish you a good day.
This seems a bit of projecting, and therefore will simply return the kind wishes for a good day.
Magic_Salad0892
03-18-13, 10:51
What about it?
http://www.fossilizedcustoms.com/transliteration.html
I'm not sure how credible the author on that is, but his article seems to mirror other ones I've read in the past, that I can't find anymore.
Point is, that due to translations, nobody can even agree on what Jesus's real name was, or what it means.
http://www.catholic.com/documents/bad-aramaic-made-easy
So, I was right. It was corrected over time, but for many years it was not. That's a cool article by the way.
Not really. So a non-canonical book of the ancient world seems to have been lost. And?
How would a book that Chronicals the wars mentioned in the bible not be canonical to the bible? Or not even important? (Also, the fact that it was supposedly written by God/Jesus/somebody would've likened it to the bible itself.)
Again, rumours of a non-canonical book surrounded by unhistorical supposition, gossip, and innuendo.
What of it?
Are you saying it's not an important biblical document? The church believed otherwise.
To prove conclusively that love is nothing more than that? No, it is not enough. It isn't even in the same universe of enough. Unless of course you are a materialist, but then you would have to state on a gun forum that you reject the claim that there is an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. Proceed at your own discretion.
First off, the inherant right to bear arms isn't even the same thing as physiological factors that contribute to a feeling. You can't even argue that. Second how can you prove that love is more than that? The fact that it's mentioned in the bible?
I'll agree that there's the POSSIBILITY that it's a lot more than brain chemicals, though most likely a product of psychology itself.
The scientific method is entirely limited to describing only that which can be measured, i.e. material reality.
But according to the scientific method, the person who proposes the existance of something is the one who carries the burden of proof.
Let me know when you have had the chance.
I will. Sometime today for sure.
Belloc I'm in real estate and met a man at a tract of land in the area yesterday that he may purchase and develop into a mid-sized housing project. Since yesterday was of course Sunday, do I deserve to be stoned to death?
I'll go out on a limb and say no. Then again, I'm having a hard time understanding the relevance of this question since Jesus never prescribed this punishment for breaking the Sabath (or any other sin). Wake me up next time some priests show up at you doorstep with a bag of rocks.
I'll go out on a limb and say no.
How kind.
Then again, I'm having a hard time understanding the relevance of this question since Jesus never prescribed this punishment for breaking the Sabath (or any other sin). Wake me up next time some priests show up at you doorstep with a bag of rocks.
I never said Jesus prescribed such punishments. Think ten commandments and their relation to the bible.
Belloc maybe I shouldn't have used the word "crap", but to many, especially believers like myself, it is extremely frustrating when we are told we must either go by the book verbatim or go to hell. D90 sounds like a good man who acknowledges Jesus's existence, respects it and likely tries to do right by others.
But to some that's not enough and he or I will be ranked among the damned regardless. In that regard we are being called worse than idiots, we are being labeled as blatant sinners who are less than worthy of the Lord's respect. And if we point out something that seems questionable or even wrong in the Bible we are almost literally demonized (as in being influenced by demons).
How kind.
I never said Jesus prescribed such punishments. Think ten commandments and their relation to the bible.
I thought that you might say that. Do you really think that it is fair to hold the Catholic Church (or Christianity in general) responsible for laws that were never recognized by the institution? After all, Jesus made a bit of a habit of breaking with Jewish Orthodoxy, and he built His church on a New Covenant that was not dependent on the teachings of the OT. Last time I checked, the Catholic Church did not care about my pork BBQ that I had for lunch.
Here is the bottom line as I see it. Let me know if you disagree. The Catholic Church, along with all Christian denominations, is at times a flawed institution. It is an organization built an run by man and therefore suffers the limitations of human error. Despite these errors, the Church has the potential to be a powerful force for good in the lives of believers who are willing to put forth the work necessary to grow and improve on the organization. Are there doctrines that rub me the wrong way? Sure, but I do not expect the Church to change its beliefs based on my preferances.
This current Pope, Fancis I, seems to possess a remarkable degree of humility to move the organization in the right direction. More than any other Pope in my lifetime, his first few days in the Papacy indicate to me a profound respect for the human condition. I wish him well in his new role.
I never said Jesus prescribed such punishments. Think ten commandments and their relation to the bible.
Sorry, I don't get your meaning here.
Belloc maybe I shouldn't have used the word "crap", but to many, especially believers like myself, it is extremely frustrating when we are told we must either go by the book verbatim or go to hell.
Who is telling you that? Do feel free to point them in my direction as I should be more than interested to learn upon what they could possibly be basing that belief on..
D90 sounds like a good man who acknowledges Jesus's existence, respects it and likely tries to do right by others.
I certainly respect your opinion of him, but his very deliberate venomous labelling of faithful and pious Catholics and other Christians as "idiots" leads me to draw rather a different conclusion.
But to some that's not enough and he or I will be ranked among the damned regardless. In that regard we are being called worse than idiots, we are being labeled as blatant sinners who are less than worthy of the Lord's respect. And if we point out something that seems questionable or even wrong in the Bible we are almost literally demonized (as in being influenced by demons).
Did you watch the youtube video I to which I linked concerning Hell? If so, what are your thoughts concerning it?
Here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8zhnooySk4
Here is the bottom line as I see it. Let me know if you disagree. The Catholic Church, along with all Christian denominations, is at times a flawed institution. It is an organization built an run by man and therefore suffers the limitations of human error. Despite these errors, the Church has the potential to be a powerful force for good in the lives of believers who are willing to put forth the work necessary to grow and improve on the organization. Are there doctrines that rub me the wrong way? Sure, but I do not expect the Church to change its beliefs based on my preferances.
This current Pope, Fancis I, seems to possess a remarkable degree of humility to move the organization in the right direction. More than any other Pope in my lifetime, his first few days in the Papacy indicate to me a profound respect for the human condition. I wish him well in his new role.
I agree 110%. You likely haven't seen my initial post here stating almost the exact same thing, but that's ok. ;)
Now don't complain that there is no such thing as 110%, because I know that is true technically. But if you look at it from the vantage point of xyz123 mumbo-jumbo, then surely...
So god won't protect the pope, unless he has a pope mobile? If he's got a pope mobile, he doesn't really need god then, does he?
God has given man the right to free will, and he abides by men's decisions (in terms of immediate outcome -- all men will have to suffer the consequences of their decisions, ultimately). God has also placed man in a physical world. God abides by the outcomes of man living in a physical world.
If someone tries to do someone harm, that is the choice of the harm doer. Sometimes good people suffer from the decisions of bad men. It is part of the bargain that God gave to us in sending us to earth.
That is why the Pope has a Pope Mobile, and why I cary insurance and CCW.
(I am not catholic and am not trying to represent a catholic doctrine)
--
Here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8zhnooySk4
Interesting, thanks.
Not being a Catholic, how widespread is this Father's interpretation in Catholic dogma? If I were to go talk to a Catholic Father about this, would he say basically the same thing?
I was not aware of this interpretation within Catholicism. It happens to be similar to my own thoughts and understanding.
I think there are some nuances missing, and and we need to realize that "hell" as spoken of in the Bible is not just a single concept, but is used to describe several concepts.
All in all, if I understood what the Father was saying, a refreshing statement on "Hell."
---
Magic_Salad0892
03-18-13, 14:11
Here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8zhnooySk4
I just watched it, and while this is one man's interpretation this is not what most religious people mean when they decry your existance because you do not follow the bible.
Though it was an interesting video, and I'll be watching Father Barron's videos on athiesm when I get the chance.
I liked this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfRqWdRUnxE
Did you watch the youtube video I to which I linked concerning Hell? If so, what are your thoughts concerning it?
Here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8zhnooySk4
I watched 80% of it, get the full idea. In regard to our discussion specifically, how do you see this man's viewpoint as applying to me or anything that I said?
In other words how am I rejecting God, only to suffer eternally, when I not only acknowledge his existence but believe in his principles and try to help my fellow man accordingly?
I watched 80% of it, get the full idea. In regard to our discussion specifically, how do you see this man's viewpoint as applying to me or anything that I said?
In other words how am I rejecting God, only to suffer eternally, when I not only acknowledge his existence but believe in his principles and try to help my fellow man accordingly?
Where did I post anything about you "rejecting God, only to suffer eternally"?
Belloc I'm going to wrap here and state that I don't have all the answers and neither does anyone else. Believe what you want, just don't be bad, selfish or needlessly judgmental to others as a member of the faithful.
The golden rule really is just that, abide by it whether you believe or not and we'll all be better off.
Generally religion threads become dominated by people who need attention and gain attention by smashing other's religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Intelligence and Religion are not diametrically opposed and anyone who claims otherwise is trying to compensate for something. The militant atheists is no better than the Westboro Baptists or Islamist Terrorists. No group has a claim on being psycho or idiot-free.
That being said as a "realist" the Pope represents me (a Protestant) to millions of others who are not Christian, like it or not (just like a certain individual became the modern face of Islam).
And from what I have seen so far--the choice is a good one--less pomp and circumstance, more substance.
Personally I would not have used the term "idiots", but what he is clearly referring to are those who follow so blindly that they overlook common sensibility at times. This can and often does happen.
Belloc I'm in real estate and met a man at a tract of land in the area yesterday that he may purchase and develop into a mid-sized housing project. Since yesterday was of course Sunday, do I deserve to be stoned to death?
Sorry for the double but any good Jewish individual will have no problem with this as of course the Sabbath is Saturday (Friday Sundown to Saturday Sundown). Christians that also strictly observe the sabbath ,do so on Saturday.
I just watched it, and while this is one man's interpretation this is not what most religious people mean when they decry your existance because you do not follow the bible.
Well, Catholics are over a billion and counting, so by "most" I take you to mean most of those who you yourself personally encounter.
Correct?
Though it was an interesting video, and I'll be watching Father Barron's videos on athiesm when I get the chance.
You mean this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-yx5WN4efo
And yes, I enjoy his movie reviews. True Grit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii_O1ONMwWg
Interesting, thanks.
Not being a Catholic, how widespread is this Father's interpretation in Catholic dogma? If I were to go talk to a Catholic Father about this, would he say basically the same thing?
---
I can only answer, hopefully.
But thanks for taking the time to post that you found it interesting and for wanting to learn more.
Belloc I'm going to wrap here and state that I don't have all the answers and neither does anyone else. Believe what you want, just don't be bad, selfish or needlessly judgmental to others as a member of the faithful.
The golden rule really is just that, abide by it whether you believe or not and we'll all be better off.
Sorry, but your previous post rather necessitates that I ask you this a second time, where ever did I post anything about you "rejecting God, only to suffer eternally"?
Uh, yes it is. Exactly.
--
U must have some great smelling and awesomely delicious - not to mention spicy - apples in your neck of the woods...
I am going to hazard a guess that you are the product of government education and thus have been indoctrinated by the State from the age of 6.
lol typical of your type. Though you are a brilliant litigator, writer and student of theology, you still have to stoop to 2nd grade insults, this as you defend your faith and the principles that it expounds.
You sir are exactly what turns many people off from religion. I won't hazard a guess about you as I refrain from insulting folks when at all possible.
Unfortunately I went to all private schools and was raised in a very religious home. I was also christened in the Catholic church as was my oldest daughter.
As far
as In any case, just how exactly would you raise your children with "biblical principles" if there were never such thing as the Bible?
It's very simple, I don't need a bible to teach me not to murder, nor do I need a bible to tell me that stealing is wrong. I also don't need to read a bible to understand that treating people with kindness is the right thing to do. I don't need a bible to understand that ****ing another mans wife is wrong or being humble is an honorable attribute... All of the above are biblical principles, yet none of them require a bible to teach or understand.
If you expect people to respect your religion, or you for that matter, you need to learn humility and learn to respect other people views on religion, even though you might disagree. It's not your place to insult, or judge me on any level, not to mention it makes you look like a classless jerkoff. Judge not... or some such comes to mind...
I keep my religion a personal and private matter, I feel no need to try and push my take on Christianity on anyone and that includes my own children. They have been taught and understand the basis of Christianity. As they get older, they can decide what "church" best fits their beliefs.
Have a nice evening.
U must have some great smelling and awesomely delicious - not to mention spicy - apples in your neck of the woods...
Better than bland and slightly sweet crawfish ;)
--
I won't hazard a guess about you as I refrain from insulting folks when at all possible.
Your own words stand against you:
"Anyone that can condone the churches stance on condoms is an idiot."
Or are you actually saying that it was simply and completely impossible for you to not venomously attack and insult all faithful Catholics and pious Christians as 'idiots'?
I just watched it, and while this is one man's interpretation this is not what most religious people mean when they decry your existance because you do not follow the bible.
Though it was an interesting video, and I'll be watching Father Barron's videos on athiesm when I get the chance.
Might I also strongly suggest his video here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk0el9nH6Q4
Secularism has been very successful of late in convincing a good many, who unfortunately have far too easily allowed themselves to be convinced, that faith and science stand opposed.
Pope Francis continues to impress.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9945987/Pope-Francis-breaks-the-mould-again-with-ceremony-at-prison-instead-of-St-Peters.html
Pope Francis breaks the mould again with ceremony at prison instead of St Peter's
"Francis, who has broken the mould with his informal approach and unscheduled walkabouts, will conduct next week's Maundy Thursday service in a prison for young offenders on the outskirts of Rome.
The service is normally held either in St Peter's Basilica or in the Church of St John in Lateran, which is the Pope's church in his capacity as Bishop of Rome.
Instead Francis, who was the archbishop of Buenos Aires before being chosen as Pope in a secret conclave in the Sistine Chapel last week, will hold the service in the Casal del Marmo jail.
There he is expected to wash and kiss the feet of 12 inmates, in a gesture that commemorates Jesus's humility towards his disciples before the Last Supper, on the night before he was crucified.
His decision has surprised Vatican officials but is very much in keeping with his past in Argentina, where he washed the feet of Aids sufferers and met with street prostitutes."
Pope Francis continues to impress.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9945987/Pope-Francis-breaks-the-mould-again-with-ceremony-at-prison-instead-of-St-Peters.html
Pope Francis breaks the mould again with ceremony at prison instead of St Peter's
"Francis, who has broken the mould with his informal approach and unscheduled walkabouts, will conduct next week's Maundy Thursday service in a prison for young offenders on the outskirts of Rome.
The service is normally held either in St Peter's Basilica or in the Church of St John in Lateran, which is the Pope's church in his capacity as Bishop of Rome.
Instead Francis, who was the archbishop of Buenos Aires before being chosen as Pope in a secret conclave in the Sistine Chapel last week, will hold the service in the Casal del Marmo jail.
There he is expected to wash and kiss the feet of 12 inmates, in a gesture that commemorates Jesus's humility towards his disciples before the Last Supper, on the night before he was crucified.
His decision has surprised Vatican officials but is very much in keeping with his past in Argentina, where he washed the feet of Aids sufferers and met with street prostitutes."
Are you British?
brickboy240
03-21-13, 15:13
I don't know much about this guy but I admit I get a chuckle at watching the big media heads blabber on about how maybe this new Pope will treat women in the clergy, gays and other issues differently.
Laughing because nothing in this guy's past should give them any indication that Pope Francis will do anything of the sort.
-brickboy240
Are you British?
Interesting question. No. Born in DC. Raised in MD.
brickboy240
03-21-13, 15:30
Quite often, the British press reports on things that our mainstream media either ignores or distorts.
Other than the occasional "random act of journalism" the American press is just too busy being a liberal house organ.
-brickboy240
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.