We Have A Pope!

[SlartyBartFast]

The educated parts of the world also happen to be the materialistic parts of the world, something that is well, unchristian by nature, and thus less likely to accept such teachings perhaps education has merely led the general populace to more extravagant excuses to live the way they(and i, im no exception) want...?

The Pope and the Catholic church are the last people on this Earth who should be complaining about materialism.

Their living arrangements and life style are a little extravagant don't you think?

And are you insinuating education is unchristian? Sorry if you aren't but that's the ultimate stupid conclusion you have to come to if you follow your line of argumentation to it's conclusion.

And I'd have to argue that generalised materialism is a FAR lesser sin than the concentration of material wealth, corruption, and power seen in uneducated and undeveloped areas (and I for one would also add the Vatican).

So, God wanted us stupid and obedient serving our masters.

Hell, why don't we go back to the days that the church didn't think that slaves had souls so it was ok to mistreat them. Or that burning heretics was good (but at least John Paul II finally admitted the inquisition might not have been a good thing).

Sounds to me you'd be perfectly happy as a slave in the dark ages. Thankfully the majority of people don't side with your views.

[Lohman446]

The Pope and the Catholic church are the last people on this Earth who should be complaining about materialism.

Considering someone else stated in this thread they are the largest owner of land in the world... (unverified) I would have to agree

[Jakedubbleya]

Actually, passages from the Old Testament have everything to do with the argument. Leviticus states how you must run your life, as a good Christian. Now, we either accept these passages as infallable, or we do not.

You've posted twice-- once saying that since the Church leaders put the Bible together it's what's best for the people. Now, when I show you the parts that people no longer follow, they're "out of context" and not relevant. Pick a position.

I realize that the leadership of the Church has changed, but I think the Church has warped the teachings in the Bible to fit its own agenda. In this case, Catholicism benifits from restricting women from power positions, under the guise of "oh, well, it's tradition." There are a great many traditions in Catholicism that have been lost over time, and a great many that have been gained (the Christmas tree, for example, is a pagan thing). The papacy decideds what will be lost and what will be gained, and I think that their actions against women in the Church is a deliberate and calculated motion.

[Lohman446]

3.No, according to the church God wants you to go to heaven and this is the testing ground. In other words, learn all you can, do all you can, the church fits into that philosophy.
.

So.. I have the power to go against the will of God? By making choices that go against His desires?

And I hear talk of the fufillment of the old Testament. Why then does the Church still hold some laws (values, ethics, etc.) from it and yet ignore others?

[Jakedubbleya]

So.. I have the power to go against the will of God? By making choices that go against His desires?

And I hear talk of the fufillment of the old Testament. Why then does the Church still hold some laws (values, ethics, etc.) from it and yet ignore others?

1. correct, thats the idea behind your state of existance.

2. Not all things were done away with, jesus himself stated that the ten commandments for example were in full effect. The un-christian laws and the traditions based uopn those laws are what was discarded in that respect. Much of it is also relative to the nature of God and Christ, God does not change and neither does Christ so certain things of that nature were kept, this is all through centuries of "revelation" of course, something I went into further depth with in an earlyer post.

[Mer]

And I hear talk of the fufillment of the old Testament. Why then does the Church still hold some laws (values, ethics, etc.) from it and yet ignore others?

$$$$$$$


Rules that are not popular will decrease membership and therefore decrease donations.

It is beneficial for organized religions in general to focus mostly on the popular rules that keep membership up and therefore keep the "pledges" flowing.

[Jakedubbleya]

Mer is correct to an extent, some traditions are flexible and can be bent to suit a parrticular culture, such as saying mass in a different languages/making the poeple more involved in the mass.

[SlartyBartFast]

The entire bible was chosen as inspired by the holy spirit(by catholics), thus infallible. But is it aplicable? no. As i said, christ did away with the old testament (by fulfilling it),

Pure and utter rubbish. The first corner stone of the lie that is organised religion.

The Bible is UNDENIABLY selectively edited, interpreted, and assembled by HUMANS. Not God.

And remember: the people deciding which bits to leave in, how to translate them, and then how to interpret them are all being tested as much as every lay person. Who's to say they passed the test?

Id like to see you point out a specific example of corruption in the vatican please.

Wow. Where do you start? How about the Cardinal that was part of this last conclave that has fraud charges outstanding against him?

3.No, according to the church God wants you to go to heaven and this is the testing ground. In other words, learn all you can, do all you can, the church fits into that philosophy.

Well then. If it's a testing ground, why be so blind and ignorant as to believe that one institution, or worse one person, has the singular definition of truth and the right path?

Pretty lame test if the correct answer was ALWAYS "do as you're told".

I think this is the tenth time or something ive said this, and its clear that you are trying to make this personal. But once again, these arent necessarily my views.

Well, I find it difficult to have a sane conversation with someone who is trolling. The answer to the validity of religion or the CAtholic church in particular cannot always be more quotes of Catholic teaching and indoctrination. It's classic circular logic.

How about discussing YOUR views then? This is what I find abhorrent about religion and discussing it with devout believers in particular. Often they'll say "it's not necessarily my view" but they lack the moral fiber to voice their opinion. Or, scarier still, they are so blinded by faith that they genuinely don't have an opinion.

Considering that so many eigth grade educated priests that perpetuated most the the nastiest and heinous moments and regiemes in history, I can happily say I'm either safe so far as heaven goes without following the Catholic church. Or, if this messed up universe is run by a diety that doesn't care what you do, but instead judges on what you believed, well I'll happily vent my anger at them and serve my time with all the other faultless millions sent to somewhere else.

[Lohman446]

2. Not all things were done away with, jesus himself stated that the ten commandments for example were in full effect. The un-christian laws and the traditions based uopn those laws are what was discarded in that respect. Much of it is also relative to the nature of God and Christ, God does not change and neither does Christ so certain things of that nature were kept, this is all through centuries of "revelation" of course, something I went into further depth with in an earlyer post.

The entire bible was chosen as inspired by the holy spirit(by catholics), thus infallible. But is it aplicable? no. As i said, christ did away with the old testament (by fulfilling it)

How goes that?

[Jakedubbleya]

Pure and utter rubbish. The first corner stone of the lie that is organised religion.

The Bible is UNDENIABLY selectively edited, interpreted, and assembled by HUMANS. Not God.

And remember: the people deciding which bits to leave in, how to translate them, and then how to interpret them are all being tested as much as every lay person. Who's to say they passed the test?



Wow. Where do you start? How about the Cardinal that was part of this last conclave that has fraud charges outstanding against him?




Well then. If it's a testing ground, why be so blind and ignorant as to believe that one institution, or worse one person, has the singular definition of truth and the right path?

Pretty lame test if the correct answer was ALWAYS "do as you're told".



Well, I find it difficult to have a sane conversation with someone who is trolling. The answer to the validity of religion or the CAtholic church in particular cannot always be more quotes of Catholic teaching and indoctrination. It's classic circular logic.

How about discussing YOUR views then? This is what I find abhorrent about religion and discussing it with devout believers in particular. Often they'll say "it's not necessarily my view" but they lack the moral fiber to voice their opinion. Or, scarier still, they are so blinded by faith that they genuinely don't have an opinion.

Considering that so many eigth grade educated priests that perpetuated most the the nastiest and heinous moments and regiemes in history, I can happily say I'm either safe so far as heaven goes without following the Catholic church. Or, if this messed up universe is run by a diety that doesn't care what you do, but instead judges on what you believed, well I'll happily vent my anger at them and serve my time with all the other faultless millions sent to somewhere else.

1.It is believed by the church and all christians that the bible was inspired by the holy spirit not written.

2.Quote: "Pretty lame test if the correct answer was ALWAYS "do as you're told".

OK, now how many people "do as they are told"?. Looks like it turned out to be one hell of a test afterall, it only maks sense that God would provide the path. catholicism merely related that path to logic and the nature of God. I explained the logic of a divinely establed institution in relation to the views of christianity in an earlyer post.

3.The reason why its not "necessarily my view" is obviously to keep the topic away from the individual, get it? Obviously this was necessary. get it now?

edit: oh, and the pedephilia by priests? those priests were obviously not good catholics first of all, secondly, those priests can be traced back to seminaries that during the seventies were run by the secularists. They were more like gay-orgy houses than seminaries really.

Keep in mind this is an institution run by men, it is not going to be perfect. The belief is that the dogma will remain constant regardless of the actions of the proprieters. This is evedint in that the dogma HAS stayed constant through many many scandals in the church including a few centuries of "for sale" popehood.

[Jakedubbleya]

Lohman what do you mean.

[Jakedubbleya]

Well, I find it difficult to have a sane conversation with someone who is trolling. The answer to the validity of religion or the CAtholic church in particular cannot always be more quotes of Catholic teaching and indoctrination. It's classic circular logic.

I am relaying catholicism out of my respect for it, not debating philosophies. Your assumptions on catholicism have largely been wrong, i have corrected those assumptions. I dont see how that is in any way "circular logic".

[SlartyBartFast]

Keep in mind this is an institution run by men, it is not going to be perfect.

BINGO!!! We Have A Winner!!!!

The writers "inspired" to write the original passages and stories of the Bible, the interpreters who translated the ancient languages, the scribes that copied the translated texts, the patrons that edited, censored and rewrote passages to create versions of the Bible, the Pope, the Cardinals, the priests, EVERYONE in an imperfect human being.

EVERY one of them is part of God's test. Every one of them might be failing that test. In accepting and blindly following or having faith in their interpretation of God's word, YOU (generic you, not the personal you) might be failing that test.

The election of one man, by a group of men, in an organisation of men (and may it be enlighened enough one day to recognise women as equally spiritual and valid as leaders as they finally recognised that slaves had souls) does not magically and miraculously change a fallible man into an infallible being with the one true interpretation of Gods path and will.

And put down the "secular" seminaries all you want, but can the Catholic church weasle it's way out of the Evils perpetuated by early missionaries, the support of the inquisition, the denial of non-whites having souls, the residential school and orphanage abuses?

And the Seventies?!? Sorry, but a good number of the priests and others involved in various sexual and abuse scandals had long since finished their training before the seventies and regardless were all under the control and responsibility of the church. If everyone involved is a bad-Catholic, that goes all the way up to the Cardinals at least and undoubtably right to the top as the coverup and acceptance was systemic.

If those priests can exist within the church as bad catholics, how can the church claim a cardinal, or a pope, or the very institutions they represent be above the same human failings?

The history of the Vatican and the Popes is as corrupt and political as the history of any monarcy or state.

OK, now how many people "do as they are told"?. Looks like it turned out to be one hell of ta tst afterall, it only maks sense that God would provide the path, catholicism merely related that path to logic and the nature of God. I explained the logic of a divinely establed institution in relation to the views of christianity in an earlyer post.

Is it an institution run by men or an institution run by the Divine? Once again the contradiction. Divinity filtered though thousands of imperfect humans somehow remains devine, while individuals within that instituion can still be "bad catholics" and fallible.

And you still don't get my point repeated question. What proof do you have the doing as you are told and following with blind faith are the right answer? We'll only know if we passed the test after we've gone over to whatever is on the other side.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: Dozens of religions are all equally convinced that only they will ascend to paradise or heaven. What makes you so ABSOLUTELY certain that you have it right and they have it wrong? Quote Catholic teachings all you want. They're absolutely meaningless in the comparison because the Jews or Mormons or Jehovas or Orthadox whatever can each quote me their teachings with equal conviction.

[SlartyBartFast]

I am relaying catholicism out of my respect for it, not debating philosophies. Your assumptions on catholicism have largely been wrong, i have corrected those assumptions. I dont see how that is in any way "circular logic".

But, my views on Catholicism are only "wrong" if you accept that Catholicism is "correct".

Hence: Circular dogma.

It's certainly not respect from you in the sense you respect it amognst other philosophies, I see adherence and belief in it as THE philosophy. You're not debating philosophies because from the supporting links you've provided you don't accept there are other philosophies to compare.

Therefore, QED, you do believe what you are writing. Otherwise, you'd have to qualify the numerous quotes and self supporting dogmas.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...onary&va=dogma

Personally, you've got an uphill battle to convince me that definition 1c isn't the one that applies:
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

The "it might not be my opinion" is a very pervasive technique to convince people of a position. It's like a sibling telling another that "It's not me that's saying it, it's mom...". It let's you get out of the heavy work and difficulty of explaining why you believe. It then turns the discussion aginst the ill-prepared and opens the possibility of them having to argue why they don't believe and then catch themselves in the trap or if they can't argue why they shouldn'y, they guess they should. It is afterall impossible to prove a negative.

[mcveighr]

When Slarty gets involved in an arguement, you really dont see him lose often.