Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’

I always said the Pope was a heretic!! :) The RC religion is really very much a pagan belief system if you examine it carefully, which no true RC is allowed to do!! :D

(Now I'll get attacked for the True Scotsman fallacy!! :) )

But, they've just started a cricket team!!

pibbur who hopes that counts
 
Well, the new pope is sure getting good reviews in my little corner of the Episcopal church. PR campaign? Possible but I rather doubt it. If it is, he's been keeping this act up for a very long time, at least back to when he was a bishop.

Orthodox beliefs are what atheists and agnostics are most outspoken against and what earns the Christian church most of its criticism. OTOH, if you're not 'ideological' in orientation, you don't need a church. It's a fundamental issue every organized religion is facing nowadays.
Actually, the fundamental issue seems to be explaining what a church is. What do you think people actually do in church? Sit around trying to discern just exactly what our ideology should be? I guess those hymnals are just there so we have a hard surface on which to jot down notes?
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,238
Location
Kansas City
Ah, the secret is out!! That's why I did away with hymnals years ago; now no-one can take notes!! :)
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,806
Location
Australia
Or perhaps it's just a case of the rule book being a bit contradictory? You've got the "man shall not lie with man" stuff and you've got the "love everyone" stuff. Could get a little tricky to resolve that tangle, even before you introduce the inevitable zealots. Perhaps you're just being a little too judgmental, hateful, intolerant, spiteful, and mean-spirited based on a very narrow litmus test of so-called political correctness?

We are not judging. Well atleast i am not anyway. We are telling people what they can do to avoid hell. I try to do it in the most loving way possible though. People mistake a Christians intentions and behaviour because they see the "Westborough Church" scam and think Christians behave that way. When a real Christian tells you to repent, it is out of love and not hate. Just FYI.
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,388
People mistake a Christians intentions and behaviour because they see the "Westborough Church" scam and think Christians behave that way.

Because some Christians do behave that way and Westboro Baptists are not the only perpetrators of that either. But, of course, members of other religions are guilty of such a behavior as well.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
Well he's also made few good statement about gays (and contraception and abortion)


Not sure what "interfere spiritually" means, though.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/pope-francis-gay-catholic_n_4080524.html

What it means, in a practical sense at least, is that he is telling priests to stop denying communion to homosexual couples if they were doing that before. Even before this statement was made, the Church - under the new pope at least - had started to put a few priests on leave after they had done this (one case made the news back in May).
 
Joined
Nov 20, 2006
Messages
1,710
Well, the new pope is sure getting good reviews in my little corner of the Episcopal church. PR campaign? Possible but I rather doubt it. If it is, he's been keeping this act up for a very long time, at least back to when he was a bishop.

I'm still surprised the elected the guy personally.
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
7,313
What it means, in a practical sense at least, is that he is telling priests to stop denying communion to homosexual couples if they were doing that before. Even before this statement was made, the Church - under the new pope at least - had started to put a few priests on leave after they had done this (one case made the news back in May).

Ah, thanks for the explanation!
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,679
Location
Studio City, CA
errr I'm not sure it actually means that. CC still doesn't support same sex marriage and sexual relations between gays are still considered sinful. What has changes is that new Pope seems to genuinely believe that gay person is "born that way" and that homosexuality is not an illness, a perversion or a "life choice". So being gay is ok with our new pope but having sex with another gay is not.

What I think "spiritual non interference" means is that CC should not react to gay person with a knee jerk condemnation and rejection but should be ready to embrace those who are "seeking God" (meaning not engaging in gay sex).
In short - less stick, more carrot.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
Actually, the fundamental issue seems to be explaining what a church is. What do you think people actually do in church? Sit around trying to discern just exactly what our ideology should be? I guess those hymnals are just there so we have a hard surface on which to jot down notes?

not sure if srs

Are you suggesting that people attend services because it's the only way to organize a choir?
 
not sure if srs

Are you suggesting that people attend services because it's the only way to organize a choir?

If you mean choir as a "social activity" than yes, many do. Also because their neighbors attend, because they want to be seen and/or because it's expected of them. So mix a bit of worship and a large dose of social activity and peer pressure and you have a concoction called "congregation".
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
Interfere spiritually could also be this: priests are now allowed, if they so choose to remarry a person which has been divorced from ther exhusbands. Or as you say, still allow homosexual person, or homosexual couples, communion. The new pope, Francis, sees everyone, as a child of God and every as living in the light of God, even the sick, the mentally disabled and the poor. And the best part of it, pope Francis himself is practising what he preaches....

As for homosexuals, I do believe that pope Francis ushers in an whole new era for the CC. In his statements about this he clearly has been saying that "who am I to judge (a homosexual) if he seeks the love of God...."
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,147
Location
Denmark, Europe
If you mean choir as a "social activity" than yes, many do. Also because their neighbors attend, because they want to be seen and/or because it's expected of them. So mix a bit of worship and a large dose of social activity and peer pressure and you have a concoction called "congregation".

That's why I said you don't "need" a church w/o any doctrine. Certainly not for pastime events.

I know that people are arbitrary as fuck.
 
Thank God I realized the hypocrisy of the church at first glance and never joined their establishment. You can find God without a Church and priest and it makes you all the more knowledged for it when you've actually studied all religions.

I never quite understood why people who believe in God would follow a book based on the writings of man.

But that's me :)

Perhaps because this "book based on the writings of man" actually has historical grounding? Archaeology has confirmed the existence of towns, cities, wars and prophets mentioned in The Bible from the biblical Hittites (a kingdom only mentioned in The Bible that archaeologists later discovered), the gates King Solomon constructed to the wars in the Book of Judges (mentioned in extra-biblical sources) and evidence for Jesus himself.

The supernatural aspects are another thing. No one can prove God was responsible for the lineage of King David. No one can prove God guided Moses. However there are fulfilled Biblical prophecies (which were not written after they occurred as the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven) which would defend the divinity.

Then we have genetic evidence of Aaron and the lineage of the The Levitical Priests as described in The Bible.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/07/science/finding-genetic-traces-of-jewish-priesthood.html

Its discoveries like this that say that there are truths in religion. Yes, I'm talking about other religions like Hinduism and Jainism too. I identify as Christian but I'm like Gandhi in believing in the truths of all religions and that most refer to the same god anyway. Although I think my view of God is more in line with that of a deist. I don't pray nor do I worship God (I wouldn't know how) so I'm also far from your traditional Christian (some would even call me a heretical) and I guess, not even religious (since I don't follow any religious practices other than trying to live a good life but that's because I desire such) although I'd be the first to defend theism and Christianity (and also the first to question, I have only arrived where I am by questioning).

Besides, the things that Jesus, Buddha and Gandhi taught are worth following. I followed my own selfish desires once. It led me nowhere fast. Next, I listened to the words of Jesus and became a much better person and not out of fear of Hell or want for Heaven but because I thought they made sense. I grew up in a racist family (they were also non-religious) and I held their views as a child. Some time later, I read the words of Jesus and I came to believe in equality for all races and genders. Which is funny as some atheists would say that The Bible produces an ill-effect on you. It didn't on me and I read through the whole Old Testament (long before the NT).

Do I claim to hold everything within Christianity as gospel truth? No. I'm not sure on the nature of God. But I'm certain that there's more to this cosmos than meets the eye and that'll we will never fully comprehend.

And yes, I thoroughly support science. I'm only against the hypothesizes of abiogenesis and the multiverse as they aren't even scientific or theories, nor do they have any logical grounding.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 12, 2013
Messages
136
Even if all that is true - the book is still written by human beings, no?

Unless God directly guided the hands of the writers - I assume we're talking about human beings and their interpretation of events - some of which we think we can prove actually happened - and a lot which we can't.

As a weak agnostic, I'm very open to the idea of God - but I don't understand why those of even the strongest faith would assume the book itself is infallible.

It makes little sense to me.

God can be God without that book, right?
 
Do I claim to hold everything within Christianity as gospel truth? No. I'm not sure on the nature of God. But I'm certain that there's more to this cosmos than meets the eye and that'll we will never fully comprehend.

Think about this for a second.

How can you - with absolute certainty - claim to know that there are things we will never fully comprehend?

How can you be so certain that we will never EVER achieve understanding of the universe?

So many people have claimed to know so many things with certainty that others can't understand. The problem with these claims is that the proof has yet to be presented or articulated in such a way that the majority can agree with it.

As of now, I still don't understand how anyone can be certain of anything, really. We can FEEL certain - but actually BE certain? I don't see it.
 
Unless God directly guided the hands of the writers - I assume we're talking about human beings and their interpretation of events - some of which we think we can prove actually happened - and a lot which we can't.

Which is why we Christians believe the bible was "inspired by the holy spirit".
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,388
Which is why we Christians believe the bible was "inspired by the holy spirit".

Are you speaking for everyone?

If you believe it was inspired, does that mean it's infallible?

Inspiration != dictation.

So, either God dictated EXACTLY what was to be written - or human beings had some say in that.

Which is it?
 
Well for me it is infallible. However the writers see different things as important. Hence how you see slightly different things in the Gospels. The wording may not be inspired but the content is like if you dictated to a secretary what you wanted written. Because for example Paul had his books dictated to his scribe at the time or so i believe. Corwin correct me if i am wrong here?
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,388
Well for me it is infallible. However the writers see different things as important. Hence how you see slightly different things in the Gospels. The wording may not be inspired but the content is like if you dictated to a secretary what you wanted written. Because for example Paul had his books dictated to his scribe at the time or so i believe. Corwin correct me if i am wrong here?

So, what you're saying is that it's commonly accepted between all Christians that God dictated exactly what was to be written?
 
Back
Top Bottom