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

Humanity has risen! said:

Dawkins is a discredited scientist for whom his selfish gene theory flopped.

Click to expand...

Selfish gene theory, far from being discredited, is actually at the core of the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology. I'd bet you have no idea what it actually implies though.

It doesn't appear, from your posts, that your religion has resulted in a generous nature with compassion towards others or any respect for rationality. And if inculcating such delusional beliefs in children leads them to display contempt for others, who don't share their delusions, then perhaps Dawkins is right in calling that a form of mental child abuse.

Humanity has risen! said:

First off I never said I was a saintly figure, I'm a sinner like anyone else. But I do sincerely attempt to hold myself to very high standards and to incite others to do it as well and not to misrepresent the gospel.

Click to expand...

We are not talking about sainthood, nor occasional sin - that is misrepresenting the argument. We are talking about a lifestyle that is glaringly incompatible with your claims:

1) You claim, repeatedly, to uphold the scriptures in a way that is "uncompromising", and reject anything that is incompatible with scripture.

2) You publicly denounce the sins of others on the basis of this extremely high standard of scriptural adherence, including telling people that they will burn in hell for their homosexual love.

3) You display a lifestyle which is clearly in violation of the scriptures and the teachings of Christ, and seem not to understand this.

Humanity has risen! said:

I really think you're greatly exaggerating in saying that because I like to buy a few products that are of great quality and craftmanship it means I have fallen prey to a form of idolatry.

Click to expand...

No. You are still limited by a weak knowledge of only a few select sins as defined by the scriptures. Idolatry is just one, and that is not what I am talking about. Sensuality and excess ($1000 headphones) are also sins in and of themselves, as I have already explained. So is wasting time on activities that do not glorify God (video games), and looking upon ungodly things (most video games, certainly Dead State). Buying Omega watches and Alpha Primes in a world where the poor go hungry is the very definition of what Christ preached against.

Leviticus 25:25
"If a fellow countryman of yours becomes so poor he has to sell part of his property, then his nearest countryman is to come and buy back what he has has sold."

Mark 10:21
"Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.”

Luke 6:24–25
"But woe to you who are rich,
For you have received your consolation.
Woe to you who are full,
For you shall hunger"

Luke 12:33
"Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys."

Luke 9:13
"Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me."

My argument is very simple - if you do not hold yourself to these extremely high demands, which scripture inarguably requires, stop making claims about your "uncompromising" scriptural standards, and stop the appalling hypocrisy of spouting biblical judgment at others.

On the question of Papal authority, and extremist pseudo-Catholics who disrespect the Pope, they have at least two major scriptural problems:

Matthew 16:17-19
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Romans 13
All of you must obey those who rule over you. There are no authorities except the ones God has chosen. Those who now rule have been chosen by God. So whoever opposes the authorities opposes leaders whom God has appointed. Those who do that will be judged.

Peter is NOT the rock on which the church was built. Jesus was!! That is just one of many misunderstandings of scripture perpetrated by Catholics. Have them check the Greek; it's 2 different words.

Corwin said:

Peter is NOT the rock on which the church was built. Jesus was!! That is just one of many misunderstandings of scripture perpetrated by Catholics. Have them check the Greek; it's 2 different words.

Click to expand...

I looked it up. Peter means small rock, the rock in upon this rock is "petra" a large mass of connected rock. Could it mean that peter was only one rock in the formation? I dunno its a bit hard to follow. Can you explain it?

The rock he was referring to, was the rock of revelation. You can't just take one scripture without taking the surrounding scriptures into context.

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

Christ said he didn't learn this from man, or a book, but from "my Father which is in heaven." The only way to learn from God is by direct revelation. Then he goes on to say:

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock [of revelation we just talked about] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

You mention "petra" as a large mass of connected rock. How is God or Christ connected to his apostles/prophets/disciples? Through revelation.

Jesus Christ's climax of the Sermon on the Mount, he said:

“Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock."

Why is revelation so important? Why is it the rock?

"Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."

In other words, the only way you can say for sure with no doubt that Jesus is Lord, is by personal revelation from the Holy Ghost.

All of us are spewing theories and scripture, and making wisecracks against each other and everything like we think we know what we're talking about. But in the end, we are human. And if someone can come along and convince you with words that something is true, then someone else who's better with words can convince you something isn't true. The only way to know for sure, is to ask God himself, and get your answer that way.

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed."

The story of the revelation does not hold as all the apostles, plus more were witnesses of the revelation. Yet Jesus chose Peter.

Corwin said:

Peter is NOT the rock on which the church was built. Jesus was!! That is just one of many misunderstandings of scripture perpetrated by Catholics. Have them check the Greek; it's 2 different words.

Click to expand...

The pun does not conduce into greek. In Aramean, the language Jesus talked on a daily basis, the pun does conduce. It tells everything. Jesus did not care about the greek language, the language he used on a daily basis was aramean. The pun conduces in French as it conduces in latin. He does not conduce in English, chinese etc
Jesus was not ignorant of those languages and the importance they were to take.
Few people speak aramean today. Which means that what matters is the accuracy of Jesus' s choice. Not the language Jesus expresses the choice in.
No misinterpretation here.

Among all his companions, Jesus chose Peter as the stone for the church to be built. He knew his passage on Earth was temporary. Jesus knew of his death, knew he would conquer death and live again. Jesus announced and it had to happen as the final evidence of the christian miracle so that the good news that christian people must spread, that is the news of Jesus'ressurection, could be spread.

When choosing Peter over the other companions as the one who had to shoulder the representation of the christian god on Earth, Jesus showed he knew that Christians would behave as Peter did. An accurate prediction.

Every apostle had their own personality. For example, Judas was a man of responsibility. When making a major mistake,he did not weasel around it. He acknowledged it and he decided by himself to pay the price for it.
Could not fit the behaviour christian people were to show. Christians are used to making mistakes and have others support the cost for them. Judas could not have been the rock for the christian church on Earth.

On the other hand, Peter. Peter was trustworthy when things did not matter and unreliable when things mattered. When his master, his companion, the man who afforded Peter the present of friendship, Jesuss was in his last days, Peter was unable of the gift of sincerity, he was unable to give that to Jesus. On the contrary, while he was so quick to lend support to Jesus in matters that had no weight, he fell in denial about himself and who he was in Jesus' last hours. Could not even believe Jesus in the last days.
Jesus predicted Peter's behaviour. While Peter believed Jesus in other circumstances without questioning, he showed a totally different face in this so mattering moment.
Unable of sincerity in those moment. Like lying to your mother, to your father on their death bed. Worse maybe.
Among all the apostles, Peter is also by far the most violent. Peter was a killer of human beings, he killed indiscriminatively, he killed to punish people who were known as not responsible.

Etc

When examining the personality of each apostle, through their acts, of all apostles, Peter's behaviour fit the behaviour of the christians as they were to display it.

Peter was without a doubt the rock of the christian church on Earth.

This is the thing, isn't it? Even Christians among themselves (like you guys) can't agree on what the scripture really means. Nor does believeing in it seem terribly helpful for being a good person. You build your world on the quicksand of a collection of texts that are thousands of years old, translated and re-translated, of diverse and sometimes dubious heritage. And you believe you can build on this quicksand because you have been told so, from father to son, in your church, in your school, as has been the custom for hundreds of generations. (Mohammed next door of course has been told that a different book is the real one, and is just as steadfast in his belief). The Bible is a hugely interesting document, as is the Quran, but as a basis of worldviews, or morals, or a guide to decisions, they are still quicksand. Why not look at the world with open eyes and draw your own conclusions instead of relying on the pre-digested wisdom from ancient books?

ChienAboyeur said:

The story of the revelation does not hold as all the apostles, plus more were witnesses of the revelation. Yet Jesus chose Peter.

Click to expand...

"The revelation" sounds like you're speaking of it as one single event. God has revealed in the past and present and still continues to reveal. Yes he chose Peter. He also chose 11 others, with Peter being the head Apostle. All entitled to divine revelation after he left.

GhanBuriGhan said:

This is the thing, isn't it? Even Christians among themselves (like you guys) can't agree on what the scripture really means. Nor does believeing in it seem terribly helpful for being a good person. You build your world on the quicksand of a collection of texts that are thousands of years old, translated and re-translated, of diverse and sometimes dubious heritage. And you believe you can build on this quicksand because you have been told so, from father to son, in your church, in your school, as has been the custom for hundreds of generations. (Mohammed next door of course has been told that a different book is the real one, and is just as steadfast in his belief). The Bible is a hugely interesting document, as is the Quran, but as a basis of worldviews, or morals, or a guide to decisions, they are still quicksand. Why not look at the world with open eyes and draw your own conclusions instead of relying on the pre-digested wisdom from ancient books?

Click to expand...

Like I said before, spewing scripture and theories in the end doesn't mean anything (although I find it intellectually stimulating), and your right about the Bible being translated many times. There's books missing, punctuation errors that changes the meaning completely, and idioms that make sense in one language but not the other. (Try telling someone to "lend you a hand" in Mandarin!).

Damian said:

I looked it up. Peter means small rock, the rock in upon this rock is "petra" a large mass of connected rock. Could it mean that peter was only one rock in the formation? I dunno its a bit hard to follow. Can you explain it?

Click to expand...

Protestant wishful thinking. They have to make a lot of shit up as they go along. That is why they don't make any sense and are split in over 40000 conflicting denominations who can't agree on anything.

Caddy said:

In other words you're arguing the particulars of Catholicism that not even Catholics can seem to agree on. How cute.

Click to expand...

In other words you revealed to be completely ignorant on the subject and you are now trying to save face by being sardonic. How cute. Fact: since Vatican II most Catholics can't agree about most things. The Church is demoralyzed and disintegrated. Modernized Catholics are like "protestant light".

And I'm basically done arguing with you, I get nothing out of discussing a subject with somebody who has zero knowledge of it and proudly gets his ass stuck instead of simply admiting it and bothering to learn.

GhanBuriGhan said:

This is the thing, isn't it? Even Christians among themselves (like you guys) can't agree on what the scripture really means. Nor does believeing in it seem terribly helpful for being a good person. You build your world on the quicksand of a collection of texts that are thousands of years old, translated and re-translated, of diverse and sometimes dubious heritage. And you believe you can build on this quicksand because you have been told so, from father to son, in your church, in your school, as has been the custom for hundreds of generations. (Mohammed next door of course has been told that a different book is the real one, and is just as steadfast in his belief). The Bible is a hugely interesting document, as is the Quran, but as a basis of worldviews, or morals, or a guide to decisions, they are still quicksand. Why not look at the world with open eyes and draw your own conclusions instead of relying on the pre-digested wisdom from ancient books?

Click to expand...

Tradition my friend. That is the true source of Christianity and that is why the Catholics have so many saints and martyrs. That is also why the Catholic Church has held fast for so long before abandoning tradition in Vatican II and starting to break from within.

There wasn't even an actual "Bible" before the 4th century. Embracing bibliolatry and claiming the holy book as the only source of religious knowledge doesn't make any sense.

If you look back at my post about the rock of Peter, and the acceptance of the established authorities, I'm only talking specifically about those who call themselves Catholic, yet disrespect the Pope - they have yet a further scriptural problem.

As I've made clear, I'm not a believer, and I don't personally accept the Bible as the basis of a code for living. But I was educated in it quite extensively. I'm only arguing with those who specifically claim to base their harsh treatment of others on strict adherence to the letter of all the scriptures, while clearly not living a lifestyle that conforms to those high standards. I think this is intellectually dishonest, hypocritical, and actually quite insulting to people of faith. I think the Christian faith is being exploited by some as a justification for very nasty political and personal prejudices. In that sense, I'm defending the scriptures.

On the subject of whether Peter is meant to be the rock and foundation of the Church, I don't think the greek argument is particularly strong. There are much better arguments in the scriptures if you want to say it is Christ, not Peter:

Acts 4.11
1 Corinthians 3:11
Ephesians 5:23

ChienAboyeur said:

Among all the apostles, Peter is also by far the most violent. Peter was a killer of human beings, he killed indiscriminatively, he killed to punish people who were known as not responsible.

Click to expand...

When did Peter do this?

Damian said:

When did Peter do this?

Click to expand...

In Acts of the Apostles two early Christians(a couple, in the matter of fact) who stole from their congregation are killed. If I remember correctly the biblical narrative is that they were "killed by the wrath of God" or something like that though, not really executed by Peter.

It is one of those weirder passages that gives rise to a lot of speculation. I would quote it if I had my Douay Rheims at hand. Saint Peter also carried a sword and was the only one to resist Caiaphas soldiers when they arrested Christ(Peter wounded one of them by cutting off his left ear).

FretRider said:

Protestant wishful thinking. They have to make a lot of shit up as they go along. That is why they don't make any sense and are split in over 40000 conflicting denominations who can't agree on anything.

Click to expand...

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Matthew 7:5).

Just add your particular denomination and we can say that there are over 40001 conflicting denominations, who can't agree on anything. And why can't you agree? Because none of the doctrines or assumed facts you argue about relate to anything we actually find when we go out and dispassionately analyze evidence in the real world. If they did, then that would be science.

Roq said:

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Matthew 7:5).

Just add your particular denomination and we can say that there are over 40001 conflicting denominations, who can't agree on anything. And why can't you agree? Because none of the doctrines or assumed facts you argue about relate to anything we actually find when we go out and dispassionately analyze evidence in the real world. If they did, then that would be science.

Click to expand...

Nope. Traditional Christendom was basically unified for a thousand years, split politically during the great schism(with doctrine remaining pretty much 99% the same to this day) and later there was the fragmentation caused by the first dozen or so protestant sects(which later fragmented into thousands more sects).

And it was still pretty well, stable and consistent on our front until Vatican II. Now you can't even go to two neighboring Churches and find a decent Mass with priests who actually follow the Catechism and know what the hell they are doing.

Hell, look at our current Pope. He makes shit up as he goes along. Last I heard he was complimenting the widown of old commie terrorist murderer Mandela for his "sainthood" and calling the Dalai Lama "his holiness".

Traditional Catholics though? We are good. There are disagreements over the current state of the Church(i.e: sedevacationists) but we agree on what is the true doctrine and what is true tradition and correct rites.

FretRider said:

Nope. Traditional Christendom was basically unified for a thousand years[…]

Click to expand...

I am no scholar on christian history, but I doubt that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_theology
also the copts, etc.
The soon afte the Schism you get the Cathars, and Waldensians, etc.. Sure, mainstream roman church held the reigns pretty well, but there was always dissent.

FretRider said:

Nope. Traditional Christendom was basically unified for a thousand years, split politically during the great schism(with doctrine remaining pretty much 99% the same to this day) and later there was the fragmentation caused by the first dozen or so protestant sects(which later fragmented into thousands more sects).

And it was still pretty well, stable and consistent on our front until Vatican II. Now you can't even go to two neighboring Churches and find a decent Mass with priests who actually follow the Catechism and know what the hell they are doing.

Hell, look at our current Pope. He makes shit up as he goes along. Last I heard he was complimenting the widown of old commie terrorist murderer Mandela for his "sainthood" and calling the Dalai Lama "his holiness".

Traditional Catholics though? We are good. There are disagreements over the current state of the Church(i.e: sedevacationists) but we agree on what is the true doctrine and what is true tradition and correct rites.

Click to expand...

The difference is that in science, when their are dissenting points of view, the evidence decides, whereas in religion the only recourse has been to burn, murder or torture dissenters into submission, something at which catholics have been particularly adept. For the first thousand years or so of Christianity's bloody history that was sufficient, but more recently the established churches have lost some of the strangehold they once had (at least in the West), due to secular philosophy and the rational enlightenment. And from a secular point of view one couldn't give a toss how many forms a god has or whether biscuits are considered to turn into the flesh of Jesus, or what particular religious figure is most similar to a rock.

GhanBuriGhan said:

I am no scholar on christian history, but I doubt that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_theology
also the copts, etc.
The soon afte the Schism you get the Cathars, and Waldensians, etc.. Sure, mainstream roman church held the reigns pretty well, but there was always dissent.

Click to expand...

You are quite correct. The early centuries, known as the Post-Apostolic period, were absolutely riven with competing theologies and factional conflict.

As you may have detected, though, you are not dealing with people interested in facts and reason. These are members of the far right, relying on ahistorical discredited documents and unscholarly revisionism to co-opt Christianity to their politics.