By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
(CNN) - Pope Francis reaffirmed the Catholic Church's opposition to gay marriage on Wednesday, but suggested in a newspaper interview that it could support some types of civil unions.
The Pope reiterated the church's longstanding teaching that "marriage is between a man and a woman." However, he said, "We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety."
States, for instance, justify civil unions as a way to provide economic security to cohabitating couples, the Pope said in a wide-ranging interview published Wednesday in Corriere della Sera, an Italian daily. State-sanctioned unions are thus driven by the need to ensure rights like access to health care, Francis added.
A number of Catholic bishops have supported civil unions for same-sex couples as an alternative to marriage, including Pope Francis when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires in 2010, according to reports in National Catholic Reporter and The New York Times.
Behind closed doors, pope supported civil unions in Argentina, activist says
But Wednesday's comments are "the first time a Pope has indicated even tentative acceptance of civil unions," according to Catholic News Service.
Later on Wednesday, a Vatican spokesman sought to clarify the Pope's remarks.
"The Pope did not choose to enter into debates about the delicate matter of gay civil unions," said the Rev. Thomas Rosica, a consultant to the Vatican press office.
"In his response to the interviewer, he emphasized the natural characteristic of marriage between one man and one woman, and on the other hand, he also spoke about the obligation of the state to fulfill its responsibilities towards its citizens."
"We should not try to read more into the Pope’s words than what has been stated in very general terms," Rosica added.
Pope Francis, who marks his first year in office on March 13, has sought to set a more tolerant tone for his 1 billion-member church and suggested that a broad range of topics are at least open for discussion.
In January, the Pope recalled a little girl in Buenos Aires who told her teacher that she was sad because "my mother's girlfriend doesn't like me."
"The situation in which we live now provides us with new challenges which sometimes are difficult for us to understand," the Pope told leaders of religious orders, adding that the church "must be careful not to administer a vaccine against faith to them."
The Vatican later denied that those comments signaled an opening toward same-sex unions.
Last June, Francis famously refused to judge gay priests in comments that ricocheted around the world. He has also said that the church should not "interfere" in the spiritual lives of gays and lesbians.
Pope Francis' greatest hits of 2013
Support of same-sex unions of any type is fiercely contested by many Catholic church leaders.
In Wednesday's interview, Francis also addressed several other controversial issues, including the Catholic Church's ban on contraception, the role of women and the devastating clergy sexual abuse scandal.
On contraception, the Pope praised Pope Paul VI for having the "courage" to "go against the majority" when restating the ban in 1968. But, Francis said, the church must also be "merciful" and "attentive to concrete situations."
Contraception and church's ban on divorced Catholics receiving holy communion, will likely be addressed at major meetings of Catholic bishops in Rome in 2014 and 2015.
“We must give a response. But to do so, we must reflect much in depth,” the Pope said Wednesday.
On the role of women in the church, an issue of particular concern to Catholics in the United States, the Pope hinted that changes could be in the works.
"Women must be present in all of the places where decisions are taken," Francis said in the newspaper interview, but the church must consider more than "functional" roles for women. To that end, Catholic leaders are engaged in "deep reflection" on women's role in the church, he said.
On the sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy, a scandal that has rocked the church in the United States, the Pope said the abuse has left "very deep wounds" on victims.
In response, the church has done more than other institutions to be open and transparent about sexual abuse by its employees, Francis said. “But the Church is the only one to be attacked."
A United Nations panel criticized Catholic leaders last month in a hard-hitting report on clergy sexual abuse.
The report said the Vatican "has not acknowledged the extent of the crimes committed, has not taken the necessary measures to address cases of child sexual abuse and to protect children, and has adopted policies and practices which have led to the continuation of the abuse by and the impunity of the perpetrators.”
The Vatican said it would study the U.N. report.
Kick out those who sexually abuse children, U.N. panel tells Vatican
On Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, who has surprised church-watchers with public appearances after saying he would live a cloistered life in retirement, Francis said he considers his predecessor a "wise grandfather."
"The Pope Emeritus is not a statue in a museum," Pope Francis said. Rather, the two men have decided that Benedict should participate in the church's public life rather than live a shuttered life.
"I thought about grandparents who with their wisdom, their advice, strengthen families and don't deserve to end up in an old folks home," Francis said.
Finally, he may sometimes wear a cape, but don't call Pope Francis a Superman, the popular pontiff said.
"To paint the Pope as a sort of Superman, a kind of star, seems offensive to me," Francis told Corriere della Sera. "The Pope is a man who laughs, cries, sleeps soundly and has friends like everyone else. A normal person."
Earlier this year, graffiti depicting a muscle-bound and flying Francis appeared on walls near Vatican City, but the Pope said Wednesday that he doesn't like the "mythology" surrounding his papacy, which marks its first anniversary on March 13.
For instance, Francis debunked the idea that he sneaks out of the Vatican at night to feed the homeless.
"It never occurred to me," he said.
(CNN's Delia Gallagher assisted in translating Pope Francis' remarks from the Italian.)
I missed the Cosmos show tonight, but I'll try to download or watch on demand. It'll be interesting to see if it's covered here. Maybe it'll be covered from some angle like, "Pope Tweets about Cosmos"..
I heard it will be re-played tomorrow on Nat Geo.
There was enough to irritate the wing nuts so I am sure there will be some angry responses.
Oh I missed it! I don't pay much attention to regular TV anymore, so this took me by surprise. Tell me, is it an update of the original, with new data and information, where they have the same basic chapters covering the same topics, or is it different from that? I figure I'll just catch it when it finds its way to YouTube, or maybe DVD.
Well he uses the "Spaceship of imagination" concept of the original. But as to your question on chapters I am not sure, it has been a long time since I have seen the original. He does "tip his hat" to Sagan nicely at the end.
The replay starts on Nat Geo in 10 minutes.
I only saw the 2nd half. It was pretty good.
It had a short segment on Giordano Bruno and his death sentence and the politics behind that. It ended with a side note mentioning he wasn't a scientist and he had no proof to back up his claims about the universe, but he did inspire Galileo to search for evidence.
Fortunately the church no longer has the power to torture and incarcerate for questioning church orthodoxy.
Or incinerate, which of course was the fate of Bruno.
Santa: "Fortunately the church no longer has the power to torture and incarcerate for questioning church orthodoxy."
In a sense, they do, as does the Anglican church. Complacency or worse. Remember it was only a little more than a year ago when Benedict turned and blessed Uganda's parliament speaker who promised a Christmas gift to push through the "kill all the gays" bill. Of course it was primarily evangelicals from the U.S. that incited violence against gays there, but both the Catholic and Anglican hierarchy showed their solidarity for the campaign against gays there, letting hysteria win out over education.
Yes, I'm glad I don't live under the Roman Inquisition. Luckily most Christians and others didn't support that kind of tyranny and ultimately we can witness that it failed. I certainly see no redeeming factors in those power mongers attempt to rule and persecute anyone that questioned their political, personal and religious motives. It was interesting how Bruno had no scientific proof of his beliefs, yet had a strong feeling he was right so he refused to back down from his claims. Most philosophers and astrologers aren't that dedicated.
My favorite is his relativistic foresight. Here is a quote from his book, “De la Causa, principio et uno”, written three centuries before Einstein, “There is no absolute up or down, as Aristotle taught; no absolute position in space; but the position of a body is relative to that of other bodies. Everywhere there is incessant relative change in position throughout the universe, and the observer is always at the center of things."
A great proponent of free thought and enlightenment cut down by fear and dogma. I suspect it is apocryphal, but at his trial, after the death sentence was announced, he supposedly challenged his accusers, ""Perhaps you, my judges, pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it."
“...more men and women were slaughtered in a couple of weeks of the terror of the atheistic French Revolution than in a century of the Inquisition.”
― Michael Coren
It seems like every belief and disbelief system has a dubious and less than ideal evidence of extreme failure.
The French Revolution wasn't so much about forcing atheism onto government – The Revolution was about cla.ss struggles. The Aristocracy led opulent lives on the backs of the rest of the country's workers through ridiculously high taxes and levies. After seeing the example of teh American Revolution and with the French intellecuals being influenced by the like of Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson (who lived in Paris for a time), the French people wanted a democratic government – not a nation ruled by A King "Appointed by God". There was also a famine at the time, further fanning the flames of revolution amongst the proletariat, debt, overcrowding in the cities, underemployment – a whole slew of factors.
Have you ever looked into the Jefferson Bible and do you know of any sect that uses it instead of the regular versions of the bible? I find it sad that the early Christians kept the Old Testament as part of their tome. It would be so much more believable if only the New Testament minus the supernatural hocus pocus was used. All the early stories of the Jewish history make the whole bible so difficult to believe, from Genesis to the supposed appearance of the Messiah. Your ELCA would be more appealing to me at least if they used Tommy's version.
+ Have you ever looked into the Jefferson Bible and do you know of any sect that uses it instead of the regular versions of the bible?
I'm familiar with the Jefferson "Bible". Although he never referred to it as a Bible. He was impressed with Jesus' teachings:
"...the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines."
I'm more interested in Jesus than the ELCA or the OT myself. The other 2 are important and relevant. But both are less than Jesus to me.
The segment on Bruno was well done. What an amazing achievement of pure thought. He said nothing in conflict with the bible either, just in conflict with RCC dogma.
The show was well produced, but has only scratched the surface so far.
Did anyone else like the animation style? It reminded me of the religious animation from Sunday morning programs 40-50 years ago.
bostontola, I liked it. I can't say I loved it. I still have a soft spot for Sagan and the "Alan Alder" approach he used in the original.
I like that Jefferson thought the supernatural elements of the Bible were a pile of bvllsh.it, or a "dunghill" as he called it. Imagine a President saying that today!!
I had the similar reaction. I was emotional when the replayed some of the Sagan clips. Many scientists of the time poo-poo'd Sagan (they didn't like popularizers at that time), I always liked him. He was one of the reasons I went into science.
It is produced by Seth MacFarlane, so the animation aspects are right down his alley. It is kind of funny that the same company that brings us Fox News is now bringing us Cosmos.
I support Jefferson and his fight for religious freedom, while at the same time keeping government free from religious or non-religious tyranny. I don't share all the same personal beliefs he held, but am very appreciative of his work. Even though it is incredibly ironic that a slave owner wrote so much about freedom (he just meant rich white guys' freedom it seems).
“Among the most inestimable of our blessings is that … of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support.” - Thomas Jefferson
I found the Fox connection interesting also.
I think money is the bottom line for that company. Conservative programming like Fox News is profitable. At the same time liberal programming like Family Guy that often mocks conservatism is also profitable.
If it makes money they will produce and distribute it. No agenda but profit.
bostontola. I actually teared up when they showed Sagan's diary and he recounted the meeting. Very touching. I sometimes think I get the same deep feeling of awe and beauty from science that the religious get from their various beliefs.
I think you're right. When you're trying to understand the action of a corporation, if you conclude it is for profit, you're going to be right almost every time.
I definitely get a "spiritual" feeling from science and mathematics. When I complete a proof or long mathematical derivation of a physical system and "see" the inner meaning, it is transformative. I can understand religious feeling because of that. I share it. But for me it comes from reality, not imagined things.
Will be interesting to see the long term fallout (if any) from the dust-up on the other pope thread.
I don't know but I can't reply. There is an update from CNN Blog Editor which may give a clue but I can't navigate directly to it and I couldn't find it after a quick browse.
Even with our freedoms and rigths there is still a need for censorship. What happened to the first amendment?
The first amendment does not apply in this case. You are a guest of CNN and by posting, you agree to the terms of service. They can set any rules they wish.
AB posted his version of the 10 Commandments, which contained profanity. Once that portion was removed, comments were disabled.
And yet Rainy Breadline's advertisement still stands. Sheez...
I'm not sure who objected, but obviously Dark Helmut's brand of hatred is deemed acceptable.
Ha. It's really cute how y'all get along. Sharing loyalty is something real!
Austin, no you don't "think". If you did, you would find it appalling that as a collective, the atheists who post here are a much more honest group than the "christians".
What does it mean when we say that something is "moral" or "immoral"?
Philosphers have discussed this for thousands of years. I think it might be helpful to examine this using a given moral issue. Let's use ra-pe, although this will be tough with the robo-censor.
Why is ra-pe immoral? I think the vast majority of us can agree that it is, although on the conservative side, the view seems to have diminished some, given all these comments their politicians make lately. I think it's still a good choice though, because REASONABLE people can agree that it is wrong. What makes it wrong? Well that's easy, isn't it? How would YOU like to be rap-ed? Ra-pe is harmful. It hurts the victim. It also hurts society. Imagine being a woman or even a man, and living in a society where ra-pe was permissible, and anyone could be legally victimized at any moment. What sort of society would this be? It would be miserable. It would be harmful for everyone. It would be immoral.
I would note also, that the Bible is at best, ambiguous over the matter of ra-pe. It compels women to marry their rap-ist for example. There are places where people are commanded to ra-pe women. Prohibition against ra-pe was not included in the Ten Commandments. Yet in our society, it's in almost everyone's list of top five worst crimes, but it didn't make the cut in God's top ten.
What we call an "immoral action" is an action which causes harm to our society. It is an action which is contrary to human flourishing. It causes unhappiness, pain, and anguish.
Okay–then what is "moral"? Clearly, it's something that causes no harm, or at least the net effect is not harmful. How about helping to heal a sick person? I think that's something that reasonable people can agree is moral. Good health leads to more happiness, a strong healthy person can contribute to a strong healthy society. Not only is the healed person better off, but usually we are all better off. Those who value and love the person who was sick benefit. The person may have people who were depending on him or her, that benefit.
What we call "moral" are those actions which contribute to the welfare of our communities, families, societies.
Sometimes it is easier to perceive that which is immoral, than that which is moral, and there can be more than one right answer. Morality is sometimes clear-cut, but sometimes it is murky. There are shades of grey. There are times when there is no perfectly moral answer to a given question. There can be both negative and positive outcomes–and they may need to be weighed against each other.
This is what morality is about–trying to determine those actions which are helpful to people, and those which are harmful to people. Morality in this way CAN be subject to empirical measurement. It is possible to measure how harmful something is. Once we wipe away the murkiness and contradictions of Biblical morality, and see it for what it really is, then reasonable people should be able to agree that,
Life is preferable to death;
Happiness is preferable to misery;
Education is preferable to ignorance;
Pleasure is preferable to pain;
Health is preferable to illness; and so on.
The concept of Morality may be ontologically subjective. But we CAN understand and set objective measures much of the time, and determined reasonably most of the time–what is moral or not, and by this means, make reasonable judgments across cultures and times that allow us to call immoral, both the extermination of the Midianites as well as the Holocaust during World War II.
Simple moral questions that religion confuse...
Life is preferable to death; >> abortion
Pleasure is preferable to pain; >> euthanasia
Pleasure is preferable to pain; >> abortion and euthanasia
I can imagine the theories that it will take to dehumanize one in order to arrive at these positions.
I'm repeating this post from Duke Universities philosophy pages because I think it is important.
•Our empirical experience of existence, as of right now, the act of perceiving itself (in the present tense only).
•Axioms, from which we could derive and conclude whatever we like about the reality presumed to underlie our ongoing instantaneous consciousness depending on what axioms we choose9.6.
Meaning, we take meaning from anything written to suit whatever our perceptions and belief are already. Thus, "Because the Bible told me so."
God and taxes both exist within the world of ideas.
I have.data.evidence.and.proof of.God.
Further more macro evolution does not.prove random mutation and tete is no proof of macor evolution.
There is evolution.
Macro and micro are terms used by people who don't want evolution to be real. Those terms are just part of the smoke screen they use.
No theistic.evolution is your.only shot at evolution.
We are not random due.to Gods presence.and prophetic word.
Thats.how we know.
"No theistic.evolution is your.only shot at evolution"
What are you talking about?
Evolution is and has been going on.
What is theistic evolution? Sound like just another attempt to add religion into scientific findings.
If you take the creation sequence...god butilt the most simple.first. man was last.
If.we macro evolved.it was.not.random. God directed it. And again he gave us.Genesis to live with.
The creation sequence in Genesis is wrong. Most of Genesis is wrong.
The Big Bang happened, and created hydrogen. some of the hydrogen coalesced into stars, as those stars burn out, they create the higher elements, then go nova, throwing that matter out...that matter starts to coalesce into asteroids, comets, then into planets.
According to Genesis, it didn't happen the way we know it happens and is continuing to happen.
Genesis is wrong.simple as that.
"god butilt the most simple.first. man was last"
You'd expect he'd know what he was doing by then, but. .
The second person created ruined his plans for people to live forever;
The first human baby killed the second human baby;
Things turned out so bad that he had to kill virtually everyone and start all over.
Since man has 3 billion base pairs of DNA, we are not the last, by your "reasoning".
The Paris Ja.ponica has 150 billion base pairs, the most complex we have on record, so this flower came last.
See how wrong you can be when you base things on "god", and the flawed work of man that is your bible?
I suggest watching Evolution vs. God on YouTube and seeing what some of the experts say.
Ok fair enough bud
Austin, this is a Christian video.
Mmmm. Willful ignorance runs deep in this one.
No, Austin. If you did, you would have no issue submitting this supposed proof to impartial reviewers
What you have are delusions of grandeur and cowardly streak that prevents you from submitting this evidence
"I have.data.evidence.and.proof of.God."
Your so-called prophetic dreams don't count unless you can show that that were in fact prophetic. Your word alone is not sufficient.
Ken, has Austin specifically claimed to have prophecies in the form of dreams?
He has claimed to have had 30 dreams become reality.
Thanks, I wanted to be sure.
I had a dream that I was in this beautiful meadow and I could hear the trickling sound of a brook nearby. Then I woke up to some scratching sound. Sure enough the cat box needed cleaning. The power of prophesy enables some of us to see hear God in all his glory. :roll:
I was once out strolling one very hot summer's day
When I thought I'd lay myself down to rest
In a big field of tall grass
I laid there in the sun and felt it caressing my face
As I fell asleep and dreamed
I dreamed I was in a Hollywood movie
And that I was the star of the movie
This really blew my mind
The fact that me an overfed long haired leaping gnome
Should be the star of a Hollywood movie, hmmm
But there I was
I was taken to a place
The hall of the mountain kings
I stood high by the mountain tops
Naked to the world
In front of
Every kind of girl
There was long one's, tall ones, short ones, brown ones,
Black ones, round ones, big ones, crazy ones
Out of the middle, came a lady
She whispered in my ear
Spill the wine, take that pearl
Goodness igaftr, that most certainly could a Biblical clue. I don't think anyone could prove that some of the spilled wine didn't spill into the path of a bullfrog....
Yeah Doris, You know Jeremiah too? He always has some mighty fine wine.
All you have, Austin, is delusions of grandeur.
I'm told you claim to have prophetic dreams. If this is not true, you can disregard what I am about to say.
If you claim this is true, then I demand your evidence. Here's how you can prove it. Post, right now, a prophecy. It has to be told to us BEFORE it happens, not after. If we hear about your prophecy after the supposed prophesied events, it's useless as evidence. I want it to be specific. I want an exact date, not just some general time in the future. I want a specific place, and if specific people are involved, I want their names. If you wait long enough, almost anything will happen somewhere. I want specifics, not va-gue statements that can be interpreted and stretched any which way.
Furthermore, your prophecy has to be something that no one could have predicted. Predicting some old sick actor will die in the next couple of years is not much of a prophecy. Predicting "war in the Middle East" is not much of a prophecy. Although being highly specific in both instances would have helped your case, such as exact dates a year in advance. So that which anyone paying attention to the news and possessing half of a brain could have predicted is not a prophecy.
Also, your prophecy has to be something significant, not trite. Commonplace events are not prophecies. There's a reason why they are called "commonplace." And it must be something that we can verify. Claiming that you predicted your Great Aunt's death isn't going to cut it, because we cannot verify this fact.
Finally, you cannot shovel 100 predictions at us and if one of them happens to come true, claim that you have the gift of prophecy. If you throw enough darts at the wall in the direction of the target, even blindfolded, eventually one of them will hit the bulls-eye, so you do not get to claim extraordinary marksmanship if it does.
Can you do this? If you cannot, you need to stop making these claims. Otherwise, I say that you are a fraud. Or at best, you are a seriously deluded person who may be borderline mentally ill. Furthermore, I will tell everyone this, and that they should not pay any heed to you–although it's possible most people are already of this opinion.
When the Church says that the un- repentant person is bound in sin, the church is saying what God is saying about that person.
It is written in stone.
For that church it may very well be so. It would not be so for those who are not a member of that church.
"It is written in stone."
What does this mean?
Other wont.be.changing for you.
How do you know this? Has the voice in your head that you call god told you so?? If so, how do you know it's god and not an imposter?
It's not a voice. GODS sovereign way of making himself known is not an audible voice
That would be direct revelation
(audible voice of God)
He communicates using his word prayer and the creation.
HE uses surrounding s to. Testify
If you are hearing God's voice audibly, or think you are, then you may want to seek medical help.
So how do you know it's god? The reality is that you don't and are making it up as you go a long...you're such a delusional little coward.
It means that Austin can only assert his position but in reality it is nothing but personal opinion.
This being the case he tries to metaphorically "ground" that opinion in "rock" hoping to falsely give the impression it is a fact.
Christian churches are all conflicted on various sins. So much worry over ancient propaganda. Ridiculous.
Austin: You are a delusional coward who hasn't the guts to submit his so-called evidence for review.
Go home, boy, and get your fvcking shinebo
The most satanic verse of the pope in the above article is the following:
"The church should not "interfere" in the spiritual lives of gays and lesbians."
By that sentence the pope implies that gays and lesbians could have a spiritual life, as if gayness and any legitimate faith in God could be compatible.
The pope is really the forerunner of the Antichrist because he legalizes the sin. The pope presumes to give sinners the soul's health without demanding repentance. That is against God's will.
God says: "Only sinners repenting and believing in Jesus will ever get into heaven."
No gay human being will ever get into heaven without repentance and faith in Jesus.
The pope is a liar. He is like a lamb that talks like a dragon.
Leave the Catholic Church, join the Christian Church right now! Find Jesus!
The Catholic Church is a wh-ore for she has forsaken her Lord, and joined Satan.
The pope is (seems to be) a highly likeable man but what he utters smells to high heaven. He is really a lamb talking like a dragon. Bottom line he is a dragon in sheep's clothing. The deepest and the truest self of the pope smells to high heaven.
You're a hateful bigot!
Ditto that !!!
Are you calling me a bigot?
Sorry Reality...saw your response to igafr after I responded.
Trust and obey.
Trusting God or not reveals character.
"Trusting God or not reveals character."
It shows gullibility and acceptance of delusion in place of reality.
I don't trust religious people so you are right...it shows their character.
The anglo-saxon glorification of liberty is bigotry and idolatry.
Rainer, there is currently no visible evidence of any deities. There is evidence showing that gender preference is decided by brain structure. There is no evidence showing that the GLBT community is harmful in anyway to anyone. There is evidence showing that the inability to take advantage of health insurance benefits is harmful to people who are gay.
No visible evidence?
Watch the sun, the moon and the stars. Well done!
The bible clarifies sin. Catholic church not needed.
It Is written.
Yes I am sure that it is a "sin" and that the Catholic church may not like it. I am, however not Catholic.
Rainer, why are you sure there is a "whom" at all?
If you would see a car, would you assume that it came into being randomly?
No, designed by engineers, assembled by labourers.
Watch the sun!
Designed by Jesus-God, and assembled by Jesus-God.
8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
11 “I baptize you with[b] water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with[c] the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
"Watch the sun, the moon and the stars"
Ok....now that we agree those things exist, show the logic and the cause and effect relationship that goes from the existance of something to Goddidit...and don't quote from the bible, it is the works of ignorant men, for example they claim the moon is a light (it REFLECTS light) and that it rules the night, but it is just as likely to be in sky during the day as night, so clearly the bible is flat out wrong.
Where is the logic and direct cause and effect. Show your work.
Yes, Austin according to those words I would be forced to endure unending torment for my non belief. I understand and willingly accept that you have forewarned me. That being said I am not convinced that this is valid.
Nobody will face unending torment for disbelief but for all the evil words he or she has spoken, and for all the evil deeds he or she has done.
@Rainer Helmut Braendlein,
The sun is just a huge pile of elements. There was no "assembly" other than gravity. How is that "designed"?
Imagine the sun would burn a little hotter then we all had to die. Imagine the radiation of the sun would decrease a little then we also had to die.
Do you really assume that the appropriate output of energy by the sun exists randomly?
No, God gave the sun the appropriate output of energy which enables life on earth. That's it.
Rainer Helmut Braendlein
"If you would see a car, would you assume that it came into being randomly?
Designed by Jesus-God, and assembled by Jesus-God."
Yes I see an effect, but why would I presume a cause?
"No, God gave the sun the appropriate output of energy which enables life on earth. That's it."
Unsurprisingly, we are suited to the exact environment that we evolved in and if we had not then we wouldn't exist in order to wonder why the sun, and environment, wasn't better suited to us.
"Do you really assume that the appropriate output of energy by the sun exists randomly?
No, God gave the sun the appropriate output of energy which enables life on earth. That's it"
How ridiculous you sound. Life evolved to maximize the available energies. You have the cause effect relationship reversed.
If I put a light 20 feet from one plant, then one at 15 feet, ten feet 5 feet and 0 feet, the plants will react to the amount of energy they recieve from the lights.Some point would be the best result for that plant. The one at 0 feet would likely be burned, the one at 20 feet would likely be stunted compared to the others.
Claiming that i designed the light output at a certain distance is the reason that one of the plants did the best, doesn't even come close to a scientific viewpoint.
And by the way....our world is far from a perfect place, in actuality, the world ( and universe for that matter) are continuously trying to kill us.
Also we have found MANY planets that are in the goldilocks zone, and very likely we will find life on those planets (life that never heard of the myths that make up your bible.)
You are assuming sentience
Jeebus is waiting on you, Rainy. Do you have a sidearm?
Were the jews bigots because they were a priestly nation set apart vying God for his purpose?
Is.Jesus a bigot because Jesus was stainless and holy and He condemns all sin?
Is the Holy spirit who guides.you into freedom from all habitual sin a bigot for.being holy?
I can't speak for any Spirits or any people who have died. I haven't called anyone living a bigot either. I was simply pointing out the presumption that lead to an assumption.
Austin: Stop spinning this and keep up. This is about bigotry against gays, nothing more!
Spirits can not be detected, thus there is no justification for believing in them.
Loaded question. It's pure conjecture to suggest that some "nation" were "priestly", much less that there were all vying for anything. Only a handful made it into the "news".
Rainer, you have presumed in your argument that both God and Satan exist.
Doesn't good and evil exist? Open up your eyes!
Rainer is correct. On atheism, there is no real good or evil, just personal opinion.
It's my personal opinion that denying health benefits to members of the GLBT community is evil.
Please consider I am just an opponent of gays within the church. Concerning gays outside the church I only want that they don't become too many, and that their life-style is not considered as the normal one. Gay lifestyle should by no means get legalized. That could cause God's wrath.
There are a lot of things I would consider good, charity, compassion, altruism. There are a lot of things I would consider evil murder, social injustice, disempowerment. I can't possibly speak for anyone else but myself.
Yeah, equal rights could draw god's wrath.
Your god is a punk
And you are a snivelling sycophant
Does good and evil exist? Of course.
What is GOOD to us? Literacy. Education. Pleasure. Health and strength. Freedom. Happiness. Family and community connections. One can list many things. These are detectable and measurable for the most part.
What is EVIL to us? Ignorance. Pain. Suffering. Slavery. Anguish. Isolation and loneliness.
This is not rocket science. We know, innately, what is good or bad. We evolved with this faculty, much like we evolved with language. We have also developed social norms, some of which are codified, most of which are enforced in some manner. We can also think about it on a personal level, and have a personal set of ethics to try to take our behavior to a higher level.
Christians have attempted to mystify morality into some mysterious object which only their God can provide. This is nonsense. We clearly evolved with a moral "language". We would never have gotten this far without it. Those tribes of our evolutionary forbears who did not develop this faculty did not survive. They were less likely to try to save each other and work together for the benefit of their entire tribe. Those who possessed a superior sense of morality functioned more harmoniously and succeeded.
No God is required for morality.
Isn't there something within you that says that the Holocaust is objectively morally evil, regardless of anyone's opinion?
Yes of course, I am heavily against suffering.
But on atheism, it's just your opinion and your opinion holds no more weight than Hitlers. There is no objective morality (morality independent of human opinion). You need a Moral Law Giver to establish objective morality. Otherwise, it's just a game of "says who?"
I hate human atrocity as much as the next person, but if it wasn't a game of "says who" would our legal system be in the shape that it is in?
I think you are under the impression that I am deciding something. I am not, I am only observing what already is.
Legality doesn't determine what is morally good and evil. The Holocaust was done legally. Hitler didn't hate human atrocity. On atheism, why was he wrong?
Yes you and I both agree on those points. It was legal and it was horrible. Hitler were he still living would still have the power to over ride our opinion. In order to stop him we would have to either change his opinion or use force.
But on atheism, why is it horrible? On Christian theism, I can affirm that the Holocaust is morally wrong regardless of anyone's opinion because morality is founded in the nature of God. Morality on the Christian view isn't founded on human opinion.
Then you have followed a basis for morality that has left your opinion out of the equation.
If I feel that it is wrong, morally and ethically wrong to not allow for two same gender persons to get married after having examined the evidence. What you are telling me is that I should sit down and accept something that I can't in good conscience accept because it is written down somewhere.
And answer as to why the Holocast was objectively wrong....
Would it be better as a moral guide to look at what pathway would cause the least amount of suffering.
Wrong is a funny word BAC because though in my own mind I have a sense of it there are a lot of people who would disagree with me but I think you are getting at that it violated the dignity and survival of billions.
"Morality on the Christian view isn't founded on human opinion."
Well it is actually....but Christians have falsely convinced themselves it comes from their god when there is no reason to conclude that.
I think eating meat is morally wrong. I do it anyway sometimes.
On a much less expansive moral issue I can always think of that poor hen I had for breakfast this morning. What am I if not a monster and a hypocrite with a full stomach?
That is correct derado8, but the christian view isn't that the "action" of genocide was wrong, the action could be correct in some situations...and hence "objective morality" doesn't exist the way it is being asserted here.
"and hence “objective morality” doesn’t exist the way it is being asserted here."
This is a serious non sequitur.
How would someone decide that the act of genocide is reasonable?
It is not a non-sequitor.
Christians have to justify the action of genocide as ordered by their god in the bible. Therefore genocide itself can be justified if it is done or ordered by their god. Hence no objective morality.
"Therefore genocide itself can be justified if it is done or ordered by their god. Hence no objective morality."
Another non sequitur.
Is genocide always wrong? It is a yes or no answer if objective morality exists.
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
I'm guessing here but maybe genocide is ok as long as it's done by someone who is invisible, intangible, inaudible and who has no aroma.
Not to me derado8, but yeah that is the gist of it.
Was the Holocaust objectively Evil? Of course. Because it was objectively harmful. People by the millions were murdered, even among those not killed, their lives were often shattered. It affected the entire society.
Now you tell me. Was the Holocaust objectively evil, and why?
truthfollower: and it is only your opinion that the bible is the word of god
and the prohibitions contained in it were the opinion of iron age man
The existence of objective morality points to the existence of God.
tf, No it doesn't. You just make that self-reinforcing statement as psuedo-evidence for your god – for which there is no evidence. Special pleading is just that.
Of course other Christians, in like manner, will judge Rainy here and explain why his views are antichrist-like.
For many Christians, their bigotry is only equaled by their hypocrisy and their circus of infighting.
"The pope is really the forerunner of the Antichrist"
Christ – "[Old English Crīst, from Latin Chrīstus, from Greek khristos anointed one (from khriein to anoint), translating Hebrew māshīah Messiah ]
There was no christ, and most likely never will be. There was only a person (one of many) that claimed he was the christ, but couldn't support the claim with any proof. Therefore, it's unlikely there will ever be an antichrist.
"The pope is a liar. He is like a lamb that talks like a dragon."
News Flash – Dragons don't exist. If they did, it's unlikely that they could talk.
Helmut is quite the nut job!
We face two issues today: The toleration of gay people and gay couples in the churches, and the legalisation of gay life-style in general civilian life.
What is the more severe issue?
Certainly, the toleration of gay people and gay couples in the churches.
Gayness is a kind of fornication. According to the biblical evidence somebody who persistently commits fornication has to leave the Church. Persistant fornication indicates that someone has abandoned his faith in Jesus Christ. The Church is the place where believers dwell in unity. The Church is not the place where evildoers are allowed to dwell.
1. Corinth. 5, 9-13
I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
This passage is clear eneough. There is no room for persistant evildoers in the church.
Therefore it is a calamity that very many churches of today tolerate gayness in their midst. At any rate that is against God's declared will, and will cause his wrath. Never in history churches turned apostate like today. That could be a sign that Jesus will return soon in order to judge.
Concerning the civil life:
There must be a place where people which don't belong to the Church can orderly live (rather exist) together. The best state would be that all people belong to the Church through faith, the well organized City of God. But, as many people hesitate to join the Church, there must be an emergency-system where they can live (rather exist) as long as God's patience is waiting (for their conversion to Jesus). Yet, seemingly, according to the biblical evidence, even if this emergency-system, the place of patience with the sinners, becomes too evil, it can cause God's wrath. When the sinners become to bold, God can put an end to their system because he is the ruler of the whole universe, not only the Lord of the Church.
Nevertheless, the more severe issue is the toleration of gayness within the churches.
The pope tolerates mandatory celibacy. That promotes child abuse by Catholic priests.. Therefore the pope is as guilty as the clergy of the churches tolerating gayness in their midst.
P.S.: The most satanic verse of the pope in the above article is the following:
"Leave the Catholic Church, join the Christian Church right now"
Wow the hate! Your version of the No True Scotsman fallacy fails. They follow the same bible that you do, they simply have a different interpretation of it. How are you so certain you are right and they are wrong?
As for LGBT...get over it and grow up. As is very evident, this is a battle your ilk is losing and there is plenty of updated information and evidence to show that your book is wrong on this matter. They deserve the same rights as everyone else. In fact I know plenty of gay christians who don't spew hatred and bigotry the way you do and YOU don't get the right to say they are not true christians-they believe in and worship the same imaginary god that you do thus they are christian.
According to St. Paul, maybe the most important Apostle of Jesus, gayness and faith in Jesus are not compatible.
If a gay seeks spiritual joy, he has to repent at first.
Repent for what? Being born that way?
These people do not choose to be gay and it is strictly your own ignorance and lack of education in reality that makes you think that, your opinion is based on 2000 plus year old information that doesn't match with the updated information/data we have on this now.
As previously stated YOU do not get to determine who is a christian and who isn't. Many LGBT believe in the same god you do and in believing in that god, they too are classified as christian.
It's time to suck it up and learn some respect. People like you who speak out and spread the bigotry are on the losing end.
They are born with it?
They just follow their own sinful lust. That is all.
You are clueless! Lust is a natural part of our being and is merely a thought, nothing more. The are born that way regardless of what you may think and in thinking they are not makes you a bigot. These people do no harm to you or anyone, they have not made a choice. If your imaginary friend created all as you foolishly believe, then it created these people and your imaginary friends book does tell you not to judge. Your hypocrisy and bigotry are sickening!
I am just an opponent of gays within the church for the Church is the place of people voluntarily living according to God's will revealed in the Bible.
If I had got a gay workmate, classmate, neighbour, etc., I would not hate him – never. Yet, for the sake of Love (Jesus) I had to tell him that gayness and faith in Jesus are not compatible. If he wished to join the Church, he had to repent before.
It is not your place to tell anyone what they should and shouldn't do with their lives, not in the name of your belief, not in the name of anything! You do not pay their way, you do not live their life and joining the church is up to them, not you.
That is right but they will have to bear the consequences.
Consequences for what? Being born gay?
First off, no-one has ever returned fro the dead to confirm that there is anything more after this life, so there can't be consequences in that regards,
Second, in secular countries they are not being persecuted legally for being LGBT. The only persecution they see is from uneducated bigots like you and Austin who have no true justification for hating them and wishing eternal torture on them outside of the fact that you have willfully chosen to remain ignorant and uneducated about the facts that show your bible is wrong all for the sake of appeasing a god that has never been shown to exist (and no the sun. etc are not evidence of a god).
Paul didn't even meet Jesus did he?
Brother Paul even met the resurrected, glorified Jesus.
"Brother Paul even met the resurrected, glorified Jesus." Allegedly.
His view of who Jesus was and what his death mean were in many ways at odds with the disciple's views. Paul changed the religion of Jesus into a religion about Jesus.
It seems quite possible to me that if Yeshua (or Jesus as he is called in the west) existed, and lived as described in the Bible, that he was gay. Did he ever say anything against gays in the gospels? It is claimed that he did not marry and was celibate, but was always apparently surrounded by young male devotees. Hmmmm.
But TruthP, Rainer is right. If you truly want to follow the Bible, you should be hating and even killing gays.
That's one reason why I find the Bible so profoundly immoral, because I agree with you on how you see LGBT people. Those who hate gays have the Bible on their side. The Bible is an engine for intolerance and bigotry. Rainer lays out the case for that quite clearly.
There is only one issue.
The bigots who use the words of men, that proclaim it to be "gods" word with nothing to back it up, and proclaim there is something wrong with people who are born gay.
That sort of bigotry goes against the further words of men, speaking as the character Jesus.
your bible is an abomination to humanity, as the history of it has proven.
And ditto that and then some !!!
If too many people become gay, the human kind becomes an abomination to God. We will see who is stronger: He or we?
"If too many people become gay,"
Or you that freaking stupid? It is YOUR god that made them that way. People are born gay...it is far more rare for someone to "become" gay. Are you among the ignorant who think it is a choice?
When a female brain develops in a male body, or vice-versa, which is the overwhelming case with most gay people, it seems it is a problem with the design, and something went wrong...so if you really think there is a god, blame HIM, not the product of a poor design that results in this natural configuration.
Also, your bible doesn't say being gay is an issue. you are misreading and misinterpretting it ( as if it has any authority over reality)
We have a choice.
We are because he doesn't exist! How blind must you be?? The LGBT movement (if we can call it that) is not stopping...time to suck it up, live in the 21st century and keep your belief out of the personal bedrooms/lives of other people.
Yes, I do. But they should not enter the Church.
Not up to you to say who should and shouldn't enter the church. Focus on your own life.
You err, it is yet up to me. Within the Church should be people able to comfort each other through faith in Jesus. Persistant sinners destroy the Church like cancer.
I don't err. You do not speak for your god any more than anyone else does! As previously stated, there are numerous LGBT christians who believe in the bible and thus are christians-you don't have the right to define what is christian and what isn't...christian is strictly a label applied to those who follow the bible.
If "sinning" (better known in reality land as making mistakes) is what you believe is destroying the church, then awesome...it's time it was torn to its base and put on the back shelves of history. It is time you stopped worrying about what happens in the private homes of other people. It is you and your ilk harming the world, not us or LGBT. Your 2 billion of the 7 billion of humans on the planet is dwindling and this is a good thing.
"We have a choice."
Then test that.
Choose to be gay...go out and be physically attracted to your gender. You do not have to act on it, just choose to be physically attracted.
Do it for a week. If you are right, you can CHOOSE to go back.
Since you will be completely unable to accomplish that, it should be OBVIOUS to you that it is in fact not a choice.
"If too many people become gay..."
Oh no! Too many people might become Gay! Oh the Horror!
Actually, I think it would be good for the human species for most straights to learn what it's like to be in the se-xual minority. Imagine being told, as a straight, that you couldn't marry a straight person. Your only choice was to marry someone of the same se-x. Try to imagine, being a man for example, and being told that you have the same rights as everyone else! You can marry the man of your choice! Or being told that God hates you, that you are an abomination, that you are going to Hell, and are immoral and sick–just because you are attracted to and love people of the opposite se-x. Imagine also, some states trying to pass laws that allow open and blatant discrimination against you–where you can be denied services available to everyone else–just because you are straight.
As a straight person myself, I find I can imagine how much this would su-ck. But apparently some people lack the empathy to do the same. If the majority became gay, except for the straight bigots, it would be a good lesson for them.
Try to imagine–all the culture, TV, film, art–if all of it depicted and celebrated gay se-xuality, not hetero. Where gays openly hugged kissed, held hands, flirted, etc. openly, and everyone just smiled, but if straights did the same, it is met with scowls and open hatred. And if you were open about your straight se-xuality, it could get you fired, picked on, family disowning you, beat up or even killed. Yes, it would definitely be a harsh lesson. No doubt about that.
It would also bring the world's population back down to tolerable limits without the need for mass premature death. I figure the Earth could figuratively breathe a big sigh of relief after just a decade of this. I also think this would be a far more human method of population control than say, sending a worldwide flood that would effectively be a Biocide.
And think conservatives! Birth Control would become a non-issue! As would abortion!
Only an "abomination" to your twisted imagination......
In the garden of Eden are you guys sure it was a tree. Fruit off of a tree doesn't seem like such a bad sin.
"Thou shalt not eat that other species that is smiling up at you"
That would make more sense to me.
"Thou shalt not eat him, he's cute, he's fluffy he's going to try and run away from you and scream in agony but man he's going to be good with a little A1"
I could see how that would be a sin.
It wasn't that just eating the fruit of a tree was sinful. It was that they disobeyed God. And there were 2 trees that symbolized more than what you suggest. Also, after eating the fruit the couple lie, hide in shame and shift the blame & not take responsibility. That is the sin that occurs. Dishonesty, shame and not taking responsibility for their action, which prevents God's redemptive powers to take place.
The problem with things that are symbolic is that a symbol can mean anything you want it to mean.
True. You can say that about anything: The Const.ituion, street signs and history involve symbols that can be interpreted differently. But they can also reveal great truths ans understandings that work.
And there were no Adam and Eve and there were no magic trees or gardens. Get your head out of the bible hole !!!
Do you literally think my head is in a hole? Or are you speaking symbolically?
If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil (sin, disobedience, etc.), how could they know they were doing something "bad"?
I don't know if they did know they were doing something "bad". They seemed pretty innocent and trusting, almost like children They disobeyed. They listened to a voice other than God's and then they did something "bad": they experienced shame about who they were and lied to cover it up. And their were real world consequences for those actions of theirs.
This sounds like an evil, trickster god then.
It's like giving a one year-old baby a bowl of ice cream with razor blades in it. If you were really feeling magnanimous, though, you might even tell the baby, "Considerable venous and arterial hemorrhaging may ensue from improper gustation and manipulation of this item"!
Not really for me.
The story is describing the relationship between the Creator and his creatures.
Like, we have to live with the consequences of the decisions that people before us made.
Or, God created us imperfect so we will make mistakes. Correcting those mistakes, by such means as discipline, may seem difficult and harsh at times. But it will create us into better people.
Yep. God inflicted the MOST SEVERE punishment EVER for the sin of ONE PERSON not following his tyrannical COMMAND.
Then he used this to punish THOUSANDS of generations.
Nice caring guy.
It wasn't a tyrannical command. It was fatherly advice. And his children disobeyed and are suffering the consequence.
A father will discipline a child because it is good for the child. The child thinks the father doesn't care. But the father knows better and wants his child to grow into something better.
We reap what we sow.
You would reap a lot more if read a lot more. Might want to start with Professor Crossan's books, "Who is Jesus" followed by his "The Historical Jesus" followed by his "Excavating Jesus". Get back to us when you finished. Other excellent studies are reviewed at Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html – the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the ti-tles of their over 100 books on the subject.
I do read a lot. I'm familiar with Crossan but haven't read those books. He once spoke at a sister church of my church. He is a Christian, right?
Crossan is an ex- RCC priest who does not believe in the resurrection. He considers himself to be a Christian but that is a stretch considering the following:
From that famous passage: In 1 Corinthians 15: 14, Paul reasoned, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."
An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,
"Even so, asking historical questions is our responsibility. Did Jesus really rise from the tomb? Is it necessary to have been raised from the tomb and to appear to his disciples in order to explain the rise of early church and the transcription of the bible? Crossan answers no, Wright answers, yes. "
About time we wrap up this thread with a summary for the new visitors:
Too bad Francis did not stop by for some added input.
The Apostles' Creed 2014 (updated by yours truly based on the studies of NT historians and theologians of the past 200 years)
Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven?????
I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)
Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,
He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.
(References used are available upon request.)
Every church and man is fallible.
There is no infallible church. Some are way worse than others.
If.you go to oneplace.com and.click ALL MINISTRIES I recommend ravI zackarius or allystair begg
I have heard Alistair Begg. He is a flat out liar, austin. Proclaims things to be true that aren't.
Millions of Catholics trust God. They’re all wrong, huh?
I really hate to say it but the leadership of the church is a fanatical tradition that.violates many basic new testament tenants.
I think it involves idolatry at the roots amid grandiose appearance. The infallibility clause is an un biblical mess. Praying to Mary is downright insane. Praying to a deceased Pope for spiritual gifts is also insane.
Catholics are.naive but I can't judge the individual. But the catholic set up is way way out of line.
It's gross idolatry. It's scary. They worship their own
They replace the role of Christ and the holy spirit with other intercessor intermediate
That is false deifica tion of the dead.
To me that is satanic.
You are on esick puppy.
Anyone who doesn't think like you do is worshipping the devil?
"To me that is satanic."
As far as I can see, so is the bible.
Austin you have observed that Catholicism pound for pound is not the same as your religion.
Buddhism is also different.
Taoism is also different
Judaism is also different
"The infallibility clause is an un biblical mess." – Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.
P.S. Man must change for God, religion shouldn't change to allow man to sin!
Thanks for posing Euthyphro's Dilemma.
You (and every theist) is unable to answer this problem.
If morality comes from a deity, (and it's not just capricious), and is rational,
then (even granting there is a deity), it MUST be referencing something external in determining what is moral.
Thus refuting itself as creator of (all of) Reality. If god is REAL, it is subsumed within Reality, and cannot be the creator of Reality. As long as it existed, non-existence ALSO was a part of Reality.
So sad. Too bad.
Euthyphros Dilemma is not a problem for the Christian. The two prongs presented in the dilemma are not the only two options. Objective morality is founded in God's nature (a reflection of God's nature) which is unchanging.
The church creates sin
Everybody tweet at this man who wrote this article and let him know how clueless he is. He misinterprets the Pope's comments for his own political agenda. The Catholic Church will never become like the Protestants who make room for man to sin. Vatican II was too much modernization as it is. I also bet this guy with his hipster plastic rimmed glasses respects the rights of Saudis to execute gays and Orthodox Jews to shun them. At the end of the day, they always respect the traditions of other religions but they want to infiltrate sin into ours.
The Catholic church is a cesspool of immorality.
"The Catholic Church will never become like the Protestants who make room for man to sin."
Yeah....the Catholic church only makes room for its Priests to sin....
“The soul has greater need of the ideal than of the real. It is by the real that we exist. It is by the ideal that we live.”
-saw that etched on the front of an art museum today
I am a really simple person, really practical and I'm not stupid but I know what I know and when I read some of this it's like listening to Charlie Brown's teacher. "Wanh wanh wanh" not a bit of it sinks in. I don't know why that is.
Because your flesh is corrupt and your heart born with enmity towards God.
Satan appeals to the depravity of the flesh mad you have even fed a seed of corruption.
Society is oppressed. You are oppressed with a bad.mental foothold.
"enmity towards God" often starts with reading the Bible and the horrendous and heartless things he has done to mankind..
Correct observer. This is very true and one reason only a savior resurrected can show you in your heart.
Wait and listen your savior seeks to awaken your heart.
Why would anyone want to honor a god that has done such terrible things to mankind? Should we honor Hitler and Stalin, too?
I guess it all revolves first around the topic of personal sin.
And if you agree with that maybe you can consider unchecked evil that rejects the solution.
Satan hates everyone because we glorify God.
His tactics are really really strong.
Scenario: You have an eight year old child with every toy known to man and a vivid imagination. The child creates a world where he is the master and can do anything and everything. The toys are informed of the rules, appraised of the consequences, told that they are loved and are set on their way to do what toys do under the watchful eye of the child/master.
Then, to test the loyalty of the toys, the child creates an alter ego that tempts the toys to do evil things such as eating pork, coveting, loving in the wrong way, and talking back to parents—serious crimes punishable by death and post mortem torture, according to the child.
You smell smoke, rush to your child’s room to find several toys ablaze in a metal wastebasket that is now referred to as “the damnation of hell”. You challenge your child to explain the behavior and the child directs you to join the toys in paying a pedophile in a robe that will teach you how to live your life according to the rules and convince you that you need to “believe in the master”. Your child tells you that failure to convert will find you in your own trash container suffering the same fate as the toys.
As a parent:
a. You consider this reasonable and rational play by a child. After all, the toys were told the rules and consequences of not following them. You go as far as to regularly pay the pedophile in a robe to keep you in line.
b. You rush your child to the nearest child behavior expert as you recognize this behavior as insane. You realize that gods are made in man’s image rather that visa versa and denounce all current religion as contemporary mythology.
Not trying to get on your case. But on the .bright side everyone is born blind.
God is the seed who reveals the supernatural light.
It isn't mental. It's a miracle.
In all fairness to you, Austin those questions always end in a non ending vortex of philosophy.
Well, I can agree that society is oppressed but I think it's done it to itself.
I don't think enmity towards God is the right word for me, I think it's more like when I look at a bible, chapter 1, in the beginning "God" but it doesn't say anything about what God is. Everything? Nothing? Infinite regress.
Sentence one. I'm just sharing how it looks from my point of view.
Ya have never been able to grasp what the father looks like or what holy character is like. It's wise not to worry about which guy anti Christ is good point.
Furthermore identifying with Christ is difficult. It takes surrender and honesty. I have never seen Jesus but I want too
Do you ? Do you want him to make himself known ?
Faith is a gift from God.
Different than stained glass and organs or pews.
The spirit is a genius.
It's too hard for me not to pick this stuff apart in minute detail.
Let me put it this way, nobody wants to die, everybody wants to be happy and comfortable. I'm not an exception to that by any means. Your religion requires me to convince myself of something and I'm not able to do it.
I got to go for the now, Austin. I'll type to you again shortly. Have a good night.
I don't know what the god character would look like either. But I do know that the Jesus character, who was born in the Middle East, has European facial attributes such as round eyes, small nose, brown-not black-hair and beard, slightly tan but not dark skin and I have even seen some images with blue eyes. Born in the Middle East.......
Austin, there is no reason to think what you say is true.
Hello BAC, still laughing about "meat heist".
I promise you that there is a reason can find you.
I gotta takeoff buddy for an hour.
derado8, I am glad you share my amusement with meat heist, I can't help but see it and it...and strikes me as completely silly.
reason did find me, it is why I don't believe you.
It seems to be.that common sense happens to be lacking spiritual depth.
And though you do.have morals that are great they need to be aligned with what you haven't perceived yet.
And it's still unbelievable until you have been lifted in a moment ordained by need.
It seems to be.that spiritual depth happens to be lacking common sense.
Wrong, Austin. We have no concept of god when we are born. Emnity toward god comes from hearing the blathering of religious fvcks like you
"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."
That is a lot to have to worry about. Just sayin.
At the end of my day I have a full plate, a very full plate and I can't concern myself with the antichrist. I just don't have the time or the energy.
Satan was an angel of light and he was so powerful and so beautifully made that his pride overwhelmed him to a point where he rebelled.
He became one who wanted to be worshipped rather than honoring Christ as creator. It was pride and beauty and just too much for him to handle and he was kicked out with his pride as he expected the honoring to be done him by the God head.
Satan was an eternal creature. And because He was unable to repent of his hatred and pride he attacks the very focal point of gods creation. Man who was created to be in direct fellowship to honor and walk with God was Satan's point of jealous attack.
You are the image of God that glorified Him in fellowship and Satan hates you for having that role. Satan wants all the attention even in his place of doom.
You have been attacked yet if you desire Grid you shall have His eternal glory and redemption.
That simple. And Jesus loves.you.
Creating Satan was apparently very important to God. God created Satan before the first human being was born.
Yes. Angels spirit beings were before humans and all other physical life....plants animals people were best and last.
I thinkangels were created after the heaven and earth.
Angels are ministering spirits.
I don't know what a spirit is, Austin. What substance? That is another issue I have with all of that.
When I think of an angel I think of like a Tulpa wich is like an imaginary being. But supposedly in Tibetan Buddhism you can split your own personality and make yourself hallucinate by focusing on it, that's a Tulpa.
Exactly. He KNEW.
At the risk of coming across as rude, you blather on and on, but you don't seem to actually say a damn thing.
A great amount of the blathering comes when Austin is asked a question that demonstrates some of the many holes in his logic. At that point he seems to just pick random verses to take up space or just runs away. All at once, he can't recall what the Bible actually says.
Peter Declares That Jesus Is the Messiah
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 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. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.
Jesus Predicts His Death
21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life[f] will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.
Satan was inside of peter
Peter then later denied Christ?
Was peter infallible like Judas?
Could the pope and church be infallible?
Is perversion of the definition of infallible glorifying to Christ.?
Who is actually infallible?
Then how did he misquote scripture? John 7:38
"Satan was inside of peter"
God's creation, Satan, seems to be everywhere. Looks like God did an effective job creating him.
It's a spiritual war.
And it is intense.
There is a war going on right now and I pray that you ask God for His delivering power and grace.
When God created everything, Satan was obviously VERY HIGH on his "to do" list. Did God create Satan before he created man or just immediately afterwards?
Millions of Catholics trust God. They're all wrong, huh?
Akira: Billions of non Catholics don't trust gods. They're all wrong??
It is only in connection with doctrinal authority as such that, practically speaking, this question of infallibility arises; that is to say, when we speak of the Church's infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility. We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church's teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility. Such consent indeed, when it can be verified as apart, is of the highest value as a proof of what has been, or may be, defined by the teaching authority, but, except in so far as it is thus the subjective counterpart and complement of objective authoritative teaching, it cannot be said to possess an absolutely decisive dogmatic value. It will be best therefore to confine our attention to active infallibility as such, as by so doing we shall avoid the confusion which is the sole basis of many of the objections that are most persistently and most plausibly urged against the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility.
Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation.
Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and a..ssistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human docu.ment.
Revelation, on the other hand, means the making known by God, supernaturally of some truth hitherto unknown, or at least not vouched for by Divine authority; whereas infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed. Hence when we say, for example, that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecu.menical council is infallible, we mean merely that its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching.
It is well further to explain:
that infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error;
that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly;
and finally that the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.
If God bestowed the gift of prophecy on Caiphas who condemned Christ (John 11:49-52; 18:14), surely He may bestow the lesser gift of infallibility even on unworthy human agents. It is, therefore, a mere waste of time for opponents of infallibility to try to create a prejudice against the Catholic claim by pointing out the moral or intellectual shortcomings of popes or councils that have pronounced definitive doctrinal decisions, or to try to show historically that such decisions in certain cases were the seemingly natural and inevitable outcome of existing conditions, moral, intellectual, and political. All that history may be fairly claimed as witnessing to under either of these heads may freely be granted without the substance of the Catholic claim being affected.
Proof of the Church's infallibility
Where did you c/p this from? ProtestantsslammingCatholics.org?
You do realize that there are converse sites slamming the 30,000 different forms of Protestantism, right? Are they correct? Are you?
Every church is infallible. Even yours.
Proof that one will go through great lengths to deny a person's faith and justify their religious bigotry, even if the worship the same Jesus and the same God.
You've convinced me. Congrats. Bigotry is ugly. Religious bigotry is very ugly.
Meant every church is fallible.
Austin is the one that said the Church is infallible in the same breath as condemning it.
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.