What Do You Think Of The Pope's Remarks?

possibly, but more likely it is the preconception he as well as others have developed for whatever reasons in their life concerning Christianity and how it is portrayed/received in this country.
All you have to do around here is utter the slightest idea inkling at a belief or acceptance of Christianity or religion at large and out come the tar and feathers.

so it is my words being filtered through those preconceptions and bias that constructs those little boxes, but they are still very far from an accurate reckoning of what I actually believe, which I have also stated numerous times is an ongoing work in progress.


Damn, am I the only one around here that remembers what people have stated over the years here?
I guess that is what keeps getting me in trouble around here, I consider a person's ENTIRE time and communications here, not just what they post in the particular thread of the day.

 

I think everyone has a problem with christian denominational doctrines except the doctrinaire. It is possible that everyone else will find no problem in authoritative teaching. i know what you mean though.

 

The pope and the Catholic church are one of the richest organizations in the world and corruption lies deep within with her sins stacked all the way to heaven. The beast will devour the harlot.

 

yeah but what did you think of the remarks there judgedread101?
You are kind of off topic, or is it just off?
Must be something you've contemplated eating.

 

Careful you don't jump off a cliiff when you go herding swine

 

Thanks for reminding me fine sir, it is time for homemade rice pudding with a dash of cinnamon. Excuse me, it is lunch time.

 

I am all for feeding the hungry.

 

I have to be careful not to preach, I can't pretend that I can teach, and yet I've lived a future out,.......I come in stages like a clown.

 

Beautiful and festive words.
In reference to other ongoing interests did you see what the esoteric spelling did?

 

Believe you, i have never eaten your food.

 

Do you think the holy spirit yet to come?

 

It has came and keeps coming

 

He feeds his sheep. If the spirit has come to you we break bread.

 

Seems to me that since some time in the 40's, the popes have been perfectly willing to leave science to the scientests.

Yes I know they have reservations on some things, stem cells, birth control, HPV vaccines. These are ethical reservations, not scientific. The pope makes no pronouncements on quantum entanglement or string theory.

Looks to me like there's a few nut-bar scientests who are not prepared to return the courtesy, who think they're qualified to make theological pronouncements. They are not. This is just arrogant.

Following the link I find reliance on something called scientific naturalism. Checked further. It is not a scientific idea, but philosophical, and it maintains that scientists must assume a closed universe with no actions permitted by an outside agent. Makes sense to me as a proper limitation on the scope of scientific enquiry. But some are taking it as a mandate to disprove the existence of God at least insofar as the cause-effect chain is concerned.

Ladies and gentlemen. You should also be thinking in terms of means and ends. The feeling of love is the result of the biochemical actions of certain neurotransmitters. Cause and effect. Yes, but also perhaps the means to an end, implying purpose.

The writer of the quoted article is hung up on 'theism.' Based on Francis' assertion that God is not a 'divine being' I'm pretty sure this is a hint at some rather more sophisticated theology at work. Panentheism, while not orthodox, understands God as both immanent and transcendental, and is strongly supported by the meaning of 'Yahweh,' I AM WHO AM. In a nutshell, the infinitive of 'am' is 'to be', and in Latin 'esse' which shows up in words like essential and necessary. So Yahweh is existence itself, the sine qua non of the universe, without whom there can be no universe.

Ironically this means that scientific naturalists are free to connsider God as a scientific phenomenon since he's no longer external to the universe, but in fact the universe itself.

Not what they wanted, but they should have been more careful what they wished for.

 

I remember a quote from this current pope where he essentially said that the mafia should repent and that illicit drugs should not be legalized in one sentence.This seems highly contradictory as the illegal drug trade is one of the prime reasons for the mafia's existence.Also it really pisses me off that the Vatican is fantastically wealthy yet sits on this money and does nothing in the way of investing it in the poor people this new pope professes to champion.Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Do you two know how ridiculous you sound?

 

Trouble is that nobody, including the vatican, knows how much money it has. There is hope.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2861070/The-Vatican-s-secret-millions-Pope-Francis-s-finance-minister-admits-Holy-squirrelled-away-hundreds-millions-books.html

Cash basis, not that much, I'd say. The real wealth is in stuff like its art collection, rare documents and so forth. Except what's needed for their own archives this should be sold off and proceeds donated to the poor.

Sorry - do like your word much better - invested in the poor. It is the only lasting cure for chronic poverty.

 

So maybe I've over-estimated the riches of the Vatican,probably gleaned from conspiracy films on youtube that also suggest the Vatican exercises immense power.And they probably have some social programs going on if I remember rightly.I'm not anti-Christian,if that is practiced in the name of love,but I think a God that sends people to some "hell" zone sounds very petty,and is not a God I can personally believe in.

 

You MIGHT have over-estimated Vatican wealth, or you might not. The article only talks about income, expenses, and income net of expenses (profit), but it does not go into assets and liabilities. They might only be making €1/yr but if they have trillions in assets and €0 liabilities of the financial sort then they are still incredibly wealthy. I think they have 3 social agencies. Nevertheless what they give is likely only a fraction of what they could give.

You are right, the vatican does have immense power, but not entirely based on wealth, but mostly on the moral influence they wield on billions of Catholics.

What the vatican does not have is transparency or accountability. I am hopeful that Francis can fix this. There was a persistent rumour that John Paul I's sudden death after only 33 days in office was related to his desire to clean up the Vatican bank.

 

Totally with you on this one! Could not agree more.

Here is a post from the thread 'The Wages of Sin is Death' that explains how I think this got so distorted. Basically Paul replaced Jesus' teaching with his own, a confused mish-mash of pagan philosophy and Mosaic law. Jesus was much more sensible and much more empowering. Paul on the other hand de-powered both Jesus and his followers. JC became a figurehead instead of a teacher, someone to be worshipped and loved, but not taken seriously as a spiritual leader.

An acceptable explanation (exegesis) of this sort of quote would probably take the line that 'death' in this context means 'dead to God's grace' or 'dead to the salvific effect of the crucifixion' or some such rubbish.
But this is a quote from one of Paul's letters to the Romans and as such it should be ignored. Not because it's to the Romans but because of who it's from.

Before he was Paul, he was Saul of Tarsus. Located in present day Turkey, Tarsus was a Greek city and a reknowned centre of neoplatonism. Just from reading his letters, it's clear that Paul was well versed in Plato's thinking. This is not controversial. This is well known to and universally accepted by new testament scholars,

So Paul wanted to harmonize Plato with Moses, and use the reults to improve on Jesus. Unfortunately, the result was a dog's breakfas and it took hold.

Results?

• 2,000 years of fretting about sin, a very small part of Jesus' teaching.
• Misplaced focus on the crucifixion as redemption from sin. It is not.
• Making the ressurection a nice afterthought instead of the whole point of the thing.
• The start of the ongoing fuss of science vs. religion
• Successful holding back of scientific progress for who knows how long.
• Misplaced focus on the 'second coming' when once was enough.
• Focus on an afterlife, when, in fact the Kingom of God is here, now.
• Serious retardation of social justice, since earthly matters are by definition a 'vale of tears' in Platonic dualism, far inferior to spiritual matters.

This whole thread is a good example of Pauline christianity. Discussion has been confusing as contributors have often misunderstood how others understood certain terms, leading to a few ruffled feathers.

A good summary of Paul's contribution: confusion and discord.

God help us all.