|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics, Religion & other Controversies » Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’

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

August 22nd, 2014, 23:01
Originally Posted by RedSocialKnight View Post
I'll just comment to say how sorry I am to see you use the word "meek" as if it were a kind of spiritual weakness.

It isn't.
It depends on the context.

It is a strong trait of character when pertaining to personal humility, as the Lord instructs us to humble ourselves.

However, it is a sign of spiritual weakness when it comes to being compromising on God's Word.

Corwin I'm very sorry I haven't replied yet, I want to post a more researched answer but I've not had the time yet. I'll get to it soon. I appreciate these exchanges greatly.
Humanity has risen! is offline

Humanity has risen!

Humanity has risen!'s Avatar
Sentinel

#561

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Trois-Rivières, Québec
Posts: 469

Default 

August 23rd, 2014, 17:28
Originally Posted by RedSocialKnight View Post
I'll just comment to say how sorry I am to see you use the word "meek" as if it were a kind of spiritual weakness.

It isn't.
You're right, it's usually more of a smug self satisfaction that marginalizes those that don't hold similar delusions.
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#562

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 978

Default 

August 23rd, 2014, 20:49
Lol, I think the two responses to my post would be more interested in having this disagreement with each other than with me.

I will say that I've never seen the slightest weakness for compromise in either the liberal or conservative wings of my own church — everybody's been vehemently denouncing each other to the general assembly for the past like, twenty years. That is exactly the reason I prefer to keep my focus on my own community rather than venturing into denominational conflict.
RedSocialKnight is offline

RedSocialKnight

RedSocialKnight's Avatar
the stronger, slower one

#563

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 246

Default 

August 23rd, 2014, 23:07
Originally Posted by RedSocialKnight View Post
Lol, I think the two responses to my post would be more interested in having this disagreement with each other than with me.

I will say that I've never seen the slightest weakness for compromise in either the liberal or conservative wings of my own church — everybody's been vehemently denouncing each other to the general assembly for the past like, twenty years. That is exactly the reason I prefer to keep my focus on my own community rather than venturing into denominational conflict.
Denominational conflicts… Hey why not? I believe they used to argue about how many angels you could get on the head of a pin. Just as long as you long as you don't wish to wish to behead (or whatever) those who get to a different answer.
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#564

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 978

Default 

August 23rd, 2014, 23:18
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
By any reasonable definition, a crucifix IS still a graven image which is forbidden in the Bible!!
Not really, depending on how you define it. First off a graven image of…? A cross is not anthropomorphized, it's just a symbol.

Second, what is worship? You are not worshipping the cross, you are just using it as a focus of your worship, a symbol.

Also simply painting Jesus is not the same as worshipping a graven image, either.

It's pretty clear they are just talking about pagan nonsense like worshipping an idol of a bird and calling it a bird god. The problem here is just that the english language itself doesn't make it easy to differentiate. It's classic case of taking things way too literally. Just like the holy rollers and snake handlers.

If it worked the way you say then Jesus would never have had any symbols in the first place.
ManWhoJaped is offline

ManWhoJaped

Keeper of the Watch

#565

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 777

Default 

August 24th, 2014, 00:29
HE didn't!! BTW, a cross and a crucifix are NOT the same thing!! Just check out Exodus 20:4 in any translation and note that it is MAKING which is forbidden.

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#566

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,562
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

August 24th, 2014, 02:20
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
HE didn't!! BTW, a cross and a crucifix are NOT the same thing!! Just check out Exodus 20:4 in any translation and note that it is MAKING which is forbidden.
You are just being too literal. Jesus did have a symbol anyway, the sign of the fish. I am shocked you don't know this.
ManWhoJaped is offline

ManWhoJaped

Keeper of the Watch

#567

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 777

Default 

August 24th, 2014, 03:21
The fish symbol probably originated in the centuries after Christ.

Of course, Christ uses symbolic language in the gospels all the time.
RedSocialKnight is offline

RedSocialKnight

RedSocialKnight's Avatar
the stronger, slower one

#568

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 246

Default 

August 25th, 2014, 00:13
Correct, the fish symbol was never used by Jesus. Symbolic language is not the same as using symbols. The fish symbol is actually a reference to Icthus (which means fish) the letters of which stand for Jesus Christ King of the Jews as in the sign placed by Pilot over him on the cross.

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#569

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,562
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

September 28th, 2014, 04:18
God instructed Solomon to have images of angels in his temple. The Ark of the Covenant also had images. Fact is protestants just fall upon themselves with the "sola scriptura" baloney. In fact it is so silly that it is self-contradictory: sola scriptura is not in the bible.

You would think Christ would mention the Bible and dictate it personally to the apostles if it were to be the main source of religious doctrine. Instead what he did was nominate 11 bishops and a pope and pass upon them teachings which they shoul pass upon others as tradition("upon this rock I will build my church"). I'm not quite sure but I think the original protestants wanted to copycat Islam because it was and still is such an "effective" religion. Obviously, it fell apart into a dozen nonsensical factions as soon as Luther tried to paint himself head of faith. None of the reformers managed to get any authority, that's why we never had any "christian muhammad" and that is why we have about 12.000 wildly conflicting protestant denominations in the US alone nowadays.
FretRider is offline

FretRider

Watcher

#570

Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 83

Default 

September 28th, 2014, 04:24
Btw, this regal latino liberation theology pope is the closest we ever had to the antichrist that lutherans wrote about in 16th century propaganda. The guy is a charismatic manipulator who is being given media time because he plays the fiddle to all NWO creeperies you can think of. "world government", "world religion", "international central banking", you name it.

It is ironic at the least that protestants are the most enthusiastic followers of his.

Popes like Sergius III and Alexander VI were terrible and corrupt men, but at least they didn't dare touch Church doctrine and tradition. I shudder to think what this guy will do. He is already persecuting traditional Catholics(i.e: *real* Catholics) everytime he can.
FretRider is offline

FretRider

Watcher

#571

Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 83

Default 

September 28th, 2014, 04:58
OMG Fret PLEASE don't display your theological ignorance in such a forceful way. When it comes to Protestantism and the Bible, you have NO idea what you're talking about. Yes, the current Pope might be close to an anti-christ, like ALL Popes, but for you to equate 'rock' with tradition is ridiculous. The Bible actually does support sola scriptura (though it's not called that since there is NO Latin in the Bible unless you use the Septuagint, which most don't) and speaks quite strongly against the use of the traditions of men. To suggest that the original protestants wanted to copy Islam is beyond belief both theologically and historically. And Yes, I am an expert in both these areas!!

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#572

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,562
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

September 28th, 2014, 05:10
No, it's not ignorant at all. Islam was pretty much the first abrahamic religion to embrace what certain authors call "Bibliolatry", and which is a hallmark of protestantism. The idea that a religion is based on an infallible holy book. Hilaire Belloc is probably the most notable scholar to defend this theory, and I believe he was right. In the case of islamic tradition at least it makes sense, because they believe angels dictated the q'ran to muhammad and that God wrote it Himself before creation.

In the case of protestantism, how can they possibly justify sola scriptura? Christianity began centuries before there was a compiled Bible. And both scholarly research and tradition agree that the oldest gospels and epistles were written decades after the crucifiction. And also, like I said, Christ himself passed His teachings through tradition and personal authority(the apostles, whom He personaly chose, and Peter, whom He personally gave authority over His one and only Church).

Tell me where in scripture Christ tells us that we should read about his teachings in a book and form our own "churches" according to the conclusions we reach? Quite the contrary, He seems to have trusted that function not to a book with His testament(the notion of which didn't even exist), but rather to the person of Saint Peter. A fallible man who would go on to deny Him 3 times and abandon Him at the cross. And that man had the keys to heaven and passed them over to the next Bishop of Rome(or do you think the function died with him?).

Quite something to meditate on, right?
FretRider is offline

FretRider

Watcher

#573

Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 83

Default 

September 28th, 2014, 23:46
Not at all, but I don't have the time right now to give you my basic theology 101 lectures. I'll just say this, Christ did not give controll of the church to Peter; you need to REALLY study what that verse means in the original. James was actually the head of the church, not Peter. You also really don't understand the meaning of 'church'. Christ himself only ever used Scripture; note especially his confrontation with Satan.

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#574

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,562
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

September 29th, 2014, 00:38
It means what it means:

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Protestants always had a big problem with this passage, just as they had a big problem with the epistle of Saint James(hence Luther tried to remove it from the Bible along with several other books). It confirms the ecclesiastical authority which they deny and there is no beating around the bush with attempts at cryptic interpretation. Ironically, that is the main reason for their division into thousands of sects who can't agree about mostly anything.

I'm not sure what you mean about Saint James the Just. Although he was the Bishop of Jerusalem and honored for that, both tradition and the parts of scripture that deal with the early history of the church clearly identify Saint Peter as its leader. If the passage I just quoted where Christ picks him out above the other apostles(primus inter pares) is not clear enough for any unbiased reader, that is.

Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Christ himself only ever used Scripture.
That affirmation doesn't make any sense.
FretRider is offline

FretRider

Watcher

#575

Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 83

Default 

October 4th, 2014, 11:46
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
I'm impressed. Who'd have thought this from a Pope?
"“The faith becomes ideology and ideology frightens, ideology chases away the people, distances, distances the people and distances of the Church of the people,” Francis added. “But it is a serious illness, this of ideological Christians. It is an illness, but it is not new, eh?” He said Christian ideology was the result of a lack of true prayer."
That reminds me of the old Roman distinction between "religio" and "superstitio". Any overly fervent religiosity was "superstitio" to Roman society. Everything in moderation.
Turjan is offline

Turjan

Turjan's Avatar
Sentinel

#576

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Austria
Posts: 530

Default 

October 4th, 2014, 11:57
Originally Posted by FretRider View Post
Fact is protestants just fall upon themselves with the "sola scriptura" baloney.
I wouldn't put it this way, but the "sola scriptura" doctrine is like shackles to Protestantism. Jason BeDuhn made a comparison of a long list of English bible translations, in order to find out which ones are the least biased, as in which ones don't retroject their doctrinal positions into the translations. The, to him, surprising result was that the Jehovah's Witnesses' (!) and the Catholic translations were the best ones, despite the former substituting "Jehova" in places where it doesn't belong.

He blamed the lower quality of Protestant translations on the need to find church teachings in the bible, due to the "sola scriptura" doctrine. This would work if Protestantism wasn't reformed Catholicism, but they carry that historical baggage. Catholicism doesn't have that problem, as they base their teachings on tradition, which means it doesn't matter if some Bible passages say something different to church teachings. They just interpret the differences away.
Turjan is offline

Turjan

Turjan's Avatar
Sentinel

#577

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Austria
Posts: 530

Default 

October 4th, 2014, 13:12
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
The Bible actually does support sola scriptura (though it's not called that since there is NO Latin in the Bible unless you use the Septuagint, which most don't)…
Pssst…. despite the Latin name, there shouldn't be any Latin (or at least not much) in the Septuagint, either.
Turjan is offline

Turjan

Turjan's Avatar
Sentinel

#578

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Austria
Posts: 530

Default 

October 4th, 2014, 22:05
Certainly not, the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation is actually quite devious and manipulative, it goes far beyond replacing mentions of God by Jehovah.

I have recently read the book Crisis of Conscience, by one of the former elders of the organization, Raymond Franz, in which he exposes the corruption of the organization and how insular they have become. His uncle Frederick Franz is the one who was responsible for the translation of the New World bible, and who made all these heretical edits. He didn't complete a university course in Greek, and was only self-taught Hebrew. This translation was literally the process of paraphrasing existing bible translations to fit their doctrine, and except Franz all the men who did it only had high school education.

Coincidentally, guess who just knocked at my door?

Your Heavenly Father loves you and wants you to come to repentance
Humanity has risen! is offline

Humanity has risen!

Humanity has risen!'s Avatar
Sentinel

#579

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Trois-Rivières, Québec
Posts: 469

Default 

October 4th, 2014, 22:38
Originally Posted by Humanity has risen! View Post
Certainly not, the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation is actually quite devious and manipulative, it goes far beyond replacing mentions of God by Jehovah.
My post was not about the organization, but about the Bible. The New World Translation checked out as least biased, narrowly followed by the Catholic New American Bible. I know that you prefer something more removed from the original texts, based on the Vulgate.
Turjan is offline

Turjan

Turjan's Avatar
Sentinel

#580

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Austria
Posts: 530
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics, Religion & other Controversies » Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:13.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch