 |
|
|
|
 Pope Francis speaks to the crowd from a balcony of the San Joaquin Episcopal Palace on July 26, 2013 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
July 25th, 2013
07:50 PM ET
Pope Francis tells youth that faith cures discontentBy Helena Cavendish de Moura, for CNN RIO DE JANEIRO (CNN) - With a blasting medley of bossa nova music as a prelude, Pope Francis addressed about a million worshippers in Copacabana beach on Thursday, lacing his message to a new generation of Catholics with Brazilian street jargon. "Bota Fe" - put on faith - was the antidote to what he called growing materialism and discontent, the pontiff said. "What can we do? Bota Fe," he said. "If we want to have real meaning and fulfillment, as you want and you deserve ... put on faith." The thread of the pontiff's speech resonated with Brazil's youth, many of whom are expressing disenchantment with their government. Police are on high alert amid the potential for protests throughout the city. On Monday, protests turned violent in the neighborhood of Laranjeiras as students and other young demonstrators hurled insults at a police battalion. Earlier Thursday, Francis walked the muddy streets of the Varginha slum where crowds rushed through the area's labyrinthine alleyways and streets to see him. The pontiff visited a resident in the neighborhood also known for its violent history of drug-related criminal activity. 'Slum pope' visits Brazil's poor Francis also met with Rio de Janeiro Mayor Eduardo Paes, who handed the pontiff a key to the city. According to O Globo newspaper, the pope told the mayor he would make an appeal to Santa Clara for better weather. "We have to offer 12 eggs to Santa Clara," the pontiff told Paes. "Santa Clara will only start to work tomorrow," Paes said in jest. Santa Clara, or Saint Claire, called the "princess of the poor" founded the Order of San Damiano. Her names means "clear" in Spanish so eggs, or egg whites, are sometimes used to remember her and to pray for good weather. According to Brazil's Climatempo weather agency, unusually cold temperatures and rain will persist over the next 48 hours. The rainy forecast forced officials to move the event's closing celebration from Guaratiba, on the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro, to Copacabana. |
  About this blog
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.  |
|
|
|
how can Christians continually talk about "what Jesus said" when the King James version of the new testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the church of England?
There were (and still are) NO original texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down 100's of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts with no two alike. The king james translators used none of these anyway. Instead they edited previous translations to create a version their king and parliament would approve.
So.... 21st century christians believe the "word of god" and the words of jesus are in a book edited in the 17th century from the 16th century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st century.
Catholics CAN talk about "What Jesus said" because unlike Anglicans, we didn't break away from the one, true faith in the 17th Century then change it to what we wanted it to say.
How can people expect to be taken seriously if they felt the NEED to alter the Word of God?
How can anyone be taken seriously if they believe that the the Bible is the word of god given the fact that it was decided by the vote of humans?
Ad Majoram,
There never was "one true faith". Orthodoxy NEVER existed. Human men fought like cats and dogs for hundreds of years about what they were going to claim was "orthodoxy" They still do, even in your cult. You never read the proceedings of the councils ? There NEVER was "One True Faith". It's a fallacy, and ignores the reality of history. Grow up.
"NEED to alter the Word of God"
So which of these is the proper unaltered version? And how do you know it is the word of god?
Timeline of Bible Translation History
1,400 BC: The first written Word of God: The Ten Commandments delivered to Moses.
500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The 39 Books of the Old Testament.
200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 Apocrypha Books.
1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up The 27 Books of the New Testament.
315 AD: Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27 books of the New Testament which are today recognized as the canon of scripture.
382 AD: Jerome's Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test).
500 AD: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages.
600 AD: LATIN was the Only Language Allowed for Scripture.
995 AD: Anglo-Saxon (Early Roots of English Language) Translations of The New Testament Produced.
1384 AD: Wycliffe is the First Person to Produce a (Hand-Written) manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible; All 80 Books.
1455 AD: Gutenberg Invents the Printing Press; Books May Now be mass-Produced Instead of Individually Hand-Written. The First Book Ever Printed is Gutenberg's Bible in Latin.
1516 AD: Erasmus Produces a Greek/Latin Parallel New Testament.
1522 AD: Martin Luther's German New Testament.
1526 AD: William Tyndale's New Testament; The First New Testament printed in the English Language.
1535 AD: Myles Coverdale's Bible; The First Complete Bible printed in the English Language (80 Books: O.T. & N.T. & Apocrypha).
1537 AD: Tyndale-Matthews Bible; The Second Complete Bible printed in English. Done by John "Thomas Matthew" Rogers (80 Books).
1539 AD: The "Great Bible" Printed; The First English Language Bible Authorized for Public Use (80 Books).
1560 AD: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add Numbered Verses to Each Chapter (80 Books).
1568 AD: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a Revision (80 Books).
1609 AD: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheims New Testament (of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).
(http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/#timeline)
eh?
That's God's way of tricking you into not believing so he can send you to his chamber of horrors.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JfUM5xHUY4M
I'm amazed that all the human gods (Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hundu, etc.) provide the same basic services. If a person of any religion is physically damaged and they are prayed for, it works if the problem requires regeneration of skin, blood, muscle, some nerves, etc. Most organ failures don't seem to work, but the interesting thing is, it's the same for all religions. All the gods answer the prayer to regenerate skin, but not the liver. As I noted earlier, the newt gods answer newt prayers for limbs. Gods are truly mysterious. Or could evolution explain this, nah...that's crazy.
boston,
Actually, the liver is the one human internal organ that does regenerate (compensatory growth) . Of course disease can put the kibosh on this function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver#Regeneration
You're right! Subst.itute Gall Bladder or favorite other organ.
There is a difference between the words "organ" and "limb" by the way. So far, throughout ALL of recorded history, there have not been any cases of a person regrowing limbs no matter how much or who they prayed to. It is rather funny because there have been claims of healing for just about every other malady but apparently there are not any Gods able to help those missing limbs, not even small children who lost limbs through no fault of their own.
A Pope for the Poor when the poor is a result of humanity being deliberately held back from the truth that every single human being is a sacred, sovereign spiritual; being responsible for themselves. The Church uses dependent ignorant people they can control – royalty, pope's and president's all use control so that they are in power and have people worship them rather than teaching people who we really are and becoming independent, self-sufficient self-respecting human beings. The pope uses fear to get people to follow rather than empowering people. There should be no poor people on planet Earth – it is because of the teachings of the church, the manipulation of royalty and governments that are keeping us enslaved to systems that do not uplift the human spirit but tie it in chains. The time is coming when this will no longer work and humanity will evolve to a higher place. If we continue to follow, the pope, royalty and president's we will continue to create suffering and grief. It is time to return to sacred spiritual teachings where we grow up living in a sacred way, honour our own lives and all other lives. The only way to peace is through self-respect and living with dignity. Dynamic creativity, celebrating our differences and creating beauty are the ways to a better world. The pope is keeping us trapped in ideas that have never served the evolution of the human spirit.
Darlene – I realize that you BELIEVE what you're saying, and I mean no disrespect to you, but you're wrong.!
Pay attention to what the Holy Father is saying, then you'll have Peace so deep and so powerful, you'll thank God for the rest of your days that you FOUND Him. Governments fail the people, false religions fail the people. Life is short................................then there's God and all HE wants from you is your love, trust and faith.
God bless you,friend
A person of belief telling another person of belief they are wrong. Funny in a sad way.
How profound ! I am SO glad that I read this. Thank you for sharing it –
This guy(Pope), IMO, comes closest to emulating the Teachings of Jesus as found in the Four Gospels, than any other Christian Leader that I can recall.
He's off to a good start. Let us join him in announcing the Gospel by our lives.
10-4;Amen.
That's on par with being the tallest dwarf in the room.
Well, he does have the tallest hat in the room... that's gotta count for something, right?
Tall hats are an unfair advantage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILkkpMEzlZY
Heh, I remember that episode.
in regards to the rcc... the vatican should be razed... its adherents scattered – and the entirety of its clergy burned alive on great pyres of the roman catholic canon.
tolerance of religious idiocy has to end.
enough is enough.
I can never tell if you're being facetious or are you seriously that horrible.
? after horrible methinks.
Agreed, except for the murdering part. I think prison is enough for scam artists and snake oil salesmen.
What about genuinely pious clergy? Should they be imprisoned also?
They should be put in insane asylums.
Why don't we just put them in gulags?
How about a hunger games style deathmatch?
You mean Battle Royale style deathmatch surely, seeing as the Hunger Games is a watered down, child friendly rip-off of Battle Royale?
True, it was a total ripoff, and not even a decent one. Battle roayale's gotta be one of my top ten films of all time. Did you see the sequel though? Ugh.
Yeah, it was pretty terrible.
I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that asked – in response to Jeffs suggestion that the entirety of the clergy of the rcc be imprisoned:
"What about genuinely pious clergy? Should they be imprisoned also?"
imprisoning the most devout, steadfast, faithful, pious members of the rcc clergy is far more unrealistic than just burning them on great pyres of the roman catholic canon.
personally i find piety to be among the most contemptible and repugnant qualities a human can possess. but that's just me – i'm silly like that – being a staunch, horrible, militant, anti-theist.
important to note: all the piety that exists within the rcc simply hasn't managed to ever gain control of the organization.
so – what's to save?
also..
sparing the most devout, pious, honest, and good among the catholic clergy would send the wrong message – entirely.
`
the chaff should be burnt.
of course we don't necessarily need to burn ALL of them – we could part the healthy ones out.
all those kidneys, livers, hearts, corneas, and other assorted bits are rather valuable.
- the truly pious can rejoice in giving life when they're gone.
horrible??? *chortle*
also – battle royale was not good.
best movie of all time?
Breakn' 2: Electric Boogaloo
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
cha cha cha
@the AnViL™ chuckles to himself as he types this ...
Yes let's just kill kill kill. You are insane. You give Atheists a bad name. Please get some help.
Faith cures reason and sanity. This universe is logical. No gods needed.
Faith is the belief in something that isnt tangible. I am certain that you have faith in many things like the hope that you will wake up and take another breath tomorrow. Have respect for people who have faith in God. You do not and that is your choice, but many including myself rely on my relationship with God even though we live in a logical sophisticated world. Its personal and its something you either have or you dont. My experiences have created complete certainty in my God so I do need physical proof, the proof is within me.
"Have respect for people who have faith in God" Why? Don't stupid people deserve to be enlightened?
When this guy sells off the stolen loot from the Vatican and ends the tyranny against gay people, I will pay attention to the Catholic Church once again. Until then they are just another money changer on the temple steps.
"Until then they are just another money changer on the temple steps."
It's why they are targeting poorer countries because the Catholic church has lost a lot of money and they need to get somewhere. Plus the more educated a society becomes the more they realize how brainwashed they were about Christianity and leave the church.
That makes almost no sense at all Dave. You do know, don't you that American Catholics are the main financial supporters of the Church, don't you? So, if the Vatican were to follow marketing 101 principles, they would naturally try to increase their business with existing customers that have the most ability to pay and the demonstrated willingness to do so.
I don't agree with Dave that that is the primary motivation for outreach in poorer countries, but I also don't agree with your marketing claims, Bill. If a market is saturated and little or no growth is possible, you more to any other market from which there are possible gains.
That said, I doubt that the main motivation is financial.
"So, if the Vatican were to follow marketing 101 principles, they would naturally try to increase their business with existing customers that have the most ability to pay and the demonstrated willingness to do so."
Do you even read the articles on this blog? Just back in March they had an article on here stating "Even though Roman Catholics are the second-largest religious group in the United States, the tradition has seen an exodus of members in recent decades. One in ten Americans is an ex-Catholic."
The same thing is happening in Europe people are leaving the Catholic Church. Plus when the pope step down to allow this new pope to enter it was all over the news that "the Catholic Church in the midst of changing social views and demographic shifts among its followers."
Dave don't bother with Bill he's not that smart and he's been a troll on here for awhile.
I'm just saying that if your premise were true, that the Church is after the money, it would seem they would go to were the money is, not to where the poor are. I'll accept your claim that people are leaving the Church but to me that just means there is a greater potential to reclaim that market share. Speaking strictly from a marketing and financial viewpoint.
Dave I think the expansion of the Catholic Church is about politics more than money. You have to remember the church is really a political machine. The picture in Brazil and Mexico, the world’s two largest Catholic nations, tells a thousand words. According to Brazil’s 2010 census, 65 percent of the population is Catholic, down from over 90 percent in 1970. Similarly, between 2000 and 2010, the percentage of Mexicans that identify as Catholic dropped from 88 to less than 83 - the largest fall recorded to date. If these trends persist, by 2025 about 50 percent of all Latin Americans will be Catholic, down from approximately 70 percent today. Such a decline would offset any gains the church might make in its new continent of hope, Africa.
The only ways they will regain market share are 1) with a major international catastrophe that reduces population and/or tremendously increases desparation or 2) with a massive overhaul that brings the church into alignment with modern research and human understanding on issues like birth control, se.x, se.xuality, female clergy, human psychology and motivation, and marriage for priests. The disparity between our current understanding of psychology and biology and what the church teaches is just too great to be ignored by most people.
Sired David...
The newly educated masses are thronging for a longing toward something worthy of socially understood idealizations... As an individualist one will ever be and no matter one's closeness to others, alone is everyone... The soulless seek out the needfulness considerations of material wealth while the soulful dare recognize their spiritual awakening... As any nations' most poorest are ever looked over and shunned by societies ranks, their inclement will of pieties shall ever be mourned upon by God...
This is just another great example of LL's poor writing skills and why they are the belief blog pseudo intellect, don't bother reading, just laugh and move on.
Doggie "dot",,,
I thought I fed your earlier..? Are you still hungry... perhaps thirsty still? I cannot be your only friend where there are many others who might want to feed and water you doggie dot... I might have to get papa to put you down for you seem to be fomenting... I won't though... For God would not look kindly upon me should I ask him to lay waste upon any doggie...
Wow, the Pope seems to be really enjoying all the attention.
if prayer works, why does the Pope need a security detail?
Just in case it doesn't work.
Why? Because of God's plan. Without the security detail, God would
have to change his plan for the Pope.
if prayer works, why do Christians ever go to the doctor?
Haven't you heard of those faith healers that get their children killed?
are they gonna play.....water popelo??
Jesus said to his disciples:
"Hear the parable of the sower.
The seed sown on the path is the one who hears the word of the Kingdom without understanding it, and the Evil One comes and steals away what was sown in his heart. The seed sown on rocky ground is the one who hears the word and receives it at once with joy. But he has no root and lasts only for a time. When some tribulation or persecution comes because of the word, he immediately falls away. The seed sown among thorns is the one who hears the word, but then worldly anxiety and the lure of riches choke the word and it bears no fruit. But the seed sown on rich soil
is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and yields a hundred or sixty or thirty fold."
no-one actually knows what jesus (if he even existed) said to his disciples.
the King James version of the new testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the church of England. There were (and still are) NO original texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down 100's of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts with no two alike. The king james translators used none of these anyway. Instead they edited previous translations to create a version their king and parliament would approve. So.... 21st century christians believe the "word of god" is a book edited in the 17th century from the 16th century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st century.
Do you even know how dumb it is to use the KJV to argue with a Catholic? LOL
as usual Bill, you insult me and throw up some smoke and mirrors.
why do any Christians feel they can quote what Jesus said when no-one knows? Can you answer?
I think I must miss Tom Tom so much I am adopting her legacy. She was always willing to engage a good discussion but never suffered a fool. Until an intelligent discussion emerges, I'm willing to entertain myself by pointing out your stupidity.
@Bill
Are you even going to explain why Catholics oppose contraception?
"Do you even know how dumb it is to use the KJV to argue with a Catholic? LOL"
Roman catholic have their own Bible version,first they discouraged laymen from studying the Scriptures independently.But later in sixteenth century they provide an English translation based upon the Vulgate, called the Douay-Rheims version, and it also approved the revisions of this version done by Bishop Challoner,which is very similar to King James Version.
Yeah, but we know our Catechism.
Doc, Catholics don't oppose contraception. We oppose artificial contraception. I'm tempted to make you learn the difference on your own but my guess is we'd end up with a straw man and spend the rest of the day arguing about that. So, I'll try an abbreviated version, but you are invited to read the Theology of the Body to get the full gist, if you are that interested.
Catholics believe holy matrimony is a sacrament and thus the partners should hold it in reverence and chastiity. Now chastiity doesn't mean abstinence like you might think. It means one should view their spouse with dignity, compassion, sacrificial love and unrestricted charity. The seex act should be reserved only for the spouse and it is the right and due communication of giving one to the other which cements their union, separates it from other relationships and expresses the abandonment of one to the other. When artificial contraception is introduced, it creates a barrier, an artificial barrier to that abandonment and giving/receiving. It's the difference between making love and having seex. When ones spouse is reduced to the object of ones own seexual gratification rather than the beneficiary of ones selfless love, that is degrading, inhumane and lustful rather than loving. It's the same reason casual seex is remarkably unsatisfying, only it brings teh mechanism of casual seex into the sacred.
Modern seexual mores tell us that more seex with fewer consequences are what we seek but most people will ultimately admit that casual, disconnected seex produces the opposite of what it promises leading the love starved person back to more casual seex. This perpetuates a cycle of separateness and isolation that is epidemic in our society. The answer is not to diminish seex to a sport or quest for conquest but to elevate it to it's proper place, as it was designed.
well done Bill ... you've managed to change the subject again without answering my question.
And for you to say that my question on Christians quoting Jesus when all the bible comes from centuries later is a foolish question just sounds like you running scared.
@Bill Deacon
Gotta tell you, you're way wrong about extramarital seex being unsatisfying.
@Bill
And what of loving, consenting, married couples expressing their deep devotion to each other by sharing their bodies and bearing their souls to each other in a physical manifestation of love – who choose to use a non-barrier form of birth control?
IE – if a husband and wife mutually agree that a vasectomy is the best thing for them, is their love making somehow less dignified?
@Bill
So your opposition to birth control increases as the possibility of a child decreases?
What's your stance on those that just can't have kids? Should they just not engage in the act?
@bill, that's just loony.
"When artificial contraception is introduced, it creates a barrier, an artificial barrier to that abandonment and giving/receiving. It's the difference between making love and having seex."
I've got to weigh in with the same question as others here, Bill. What is the position on a sterile het.eros.exual couple who are in their 30s. Can they have se.x? If this is not a problem, how is it different from a couple that has chosen sterilization having se.x?
I'm in my 30s. I've been in a committed relationship with the same person for nigh on a decade.
We never got married and never will.
We are raising a bright, cheerful child in a home filled with love, music, dancing, art, and all manner of happiness.
We discuss everything openly and honestly without fear of reprisal and support each other in all things.
My partner is prone to commenting on how something must be wrong with us becuase we never argue.
5 years ago, I had a vasectomy.
Is the love we share somehow less than that of a Catholic couple?
(as an aside, her family are Portuguese immigrants and very Catholic while my father was in the seminary prior to becoming an infantry medic)
Christians can quote what Jesus said because it has been witnessed to us by the saints and martyrs, codified by the Holy Scriptures and evidenced by the Holy Spirit. It's not that hard DD. Now answer my question. Why would atheists rather argue about their self constructed straw men rather than learn the catechism?
I don't know Doc. I'm not a marriage counselor and even if I were I can't peer into the innermost parts of you or your wives experience in marriage. That is for you to work out. You asked me why the Church opposes artificial birth control and I gave you the reason which is founded on the promise of the fulfillment of Holy matrimony. You're more than welcome to create any kind of life for yourself that you desire. The Church just gives us the teaching for the kind of life that is available.
"Why would atheists rather argue about their self constructed straw men rather than learn the catechism?"
I don't know who this was addressed to since you didn't say, but that is a manipulative sentence structure, Bill, and I suspect you know it. If I asked "Would Catholics rather support their child abusing priests or learn how their theology has led to this problem?" How would you answer?
And no, I neither support nor am asking that question, just making a point that you are trying to be manipulative.
Saraswati
Crying 'straw man argument' is Bill's way of trying to avoid dealing with glaring inconsistencies in theology when pointed out to him.
@Bill Deacon
The Catechism is predicated on accepting supernatural propositions as ineffable, innerrant, unalterable Truth.
Once a proposition has been accepted on faith, it cannot thereafter bear to be examined with reason.
Dogma is anathema to the skeptic.
On the question of sterile couples, couples past child bearing age, acts that don't result in pregnancy, medical issues etc. we're getting into deeper layers of the teaching that this board may limit good expression of but it goes like this:
The outcome of the act of union with the spouse doesn't determine the nature of the expression. If a woman is post menopausal, it's not the fact that she can't have children which establishes her openness to her husband, it's the act of being open to him physically, seexually, emotionally and spiritually that dignifies their congress. Like wise, if a man is sterile, it isn't the fact that he can't get his wife pregnant that diminishes his wife, it is the deliberate and artificial prophylactic which reduces his approach to her from the sublime to the mundane.
@Bill, If it is good enough for an unintentionally sterile couple to make these decisions it should be no different for a couple where the woman has chosen sterilization.
Sara, the "straw man" comment was aimed at Dyslexic. He has a propensity to build them. I can't recall you ever doing so. From the first times I began posting on these boards, my goal was to bring some accuracy about Catholic belief to the discussion, hoping that some of the same old dumb arguments could be eliminated and we could discuss what the Church actually teaches and does as opposed to what people think the Church teaches and does. It's been an uphill battle because a lot of people prefer their illusions.
@Bill
What the....? So you just don't want people to make that choice for themselves. Could someone convince you that your deity told them to use protection?
@Damocles, As far as I can tell only sterile women and those past menopause are trusted to decide for themselves when to have se.x.
Sara, I rescind my earlier comment that you don't create straw men.
@Sara
Right, because there is an extremely small chance of producing kids. If you are deemed fertile, however, you better start popping 'em out one after another.
I am utterly amazed at how a person can go to a filthy, overpopulated slum and say 'oh, what we need to fix this problem is more children'. Criminal stupidity.
@Bill, You wrote:
"If a woman is post menopausal, it's not the fact that she can't have children which establishes her openness to her husband, it's the act of being open to him physically, seexually, emotionally and spiritually that dignifies their congress. Like wise, if a man is sterile, it isn't the fact that he can't get his wife pregnant that diminishes his wife, it is the deliberate and artificial prophylactic which reduces his approach to her from the sublime to the mundane."
Other than repeating the premise, that the "artificial" is unacceptable, you have added nothing to explain why a post-menopausal or sterile woman can make this decision on her own but a woman cannot choose to get her tubes tied and then proceed to makes such a decision. If a sterile woman can make such a judgement, so can a woman who has had chosen sterilization, it simply allows both women more freedom in their choice.
@Damocles, what is interesting too is how the Church now wants to deny that procreation was the point of this ban. Except for a couple of odd references, first to old testament requirement to father kids for your dead brother and then to self-mutilation- the bible is silent on birth control. We first see it discussed by Clement of Alexandria who is very clear that propagation of the species is the goal. This is the same logic used in Mao's early days and in Romania and Nazi germany for promoting procreation. Now, too, many other pronatalist policies are in place, albeit less drastic. But it is always about increasing the species, or more often the specific ethnic or religious group. Sadly, too, we also have these decisions made in the Catholic church by men who themselves are banned from having se.x, men no different than the rest of humanity that hates to see others enjoying what they themselves cannot. It would be nice to believe that human instinct is more evolved than that, but the evidence on what brings happiness is against it.
@sara
Yes, I didn't want to delve into that until I had to, but you are correct. This also ties into Bill's economic class that he tried in earlier posts in that, while poor, the sheer numbers can gurantee steady influx of money, not to mention that desperate people are always of value to those in charge.
I'm off for the day, must get some sleep. Have a good one.
Sara, it appeared to me that you took two examples I gave and used them to back into a definition of the teaching. Maybe you didn't intend to do that. As I said, the teaching is very evolved and somewhat intricate, making it hard to dissect on this board. I suppose that lends to the temptation to paraphrase it and misrepresent from either side. People are of course free to construct their lives around any philosophy they choose. They are just not free to do so and call it Catholic. Neither should the be free to misrepresent the authentic teaching of the Church in a disparaging way and label that Catholic. With as many and varied people who post on here that so many atheist get it wrong, I'm surprised that more don't actually pursue at least a cursory study of the catechism to learn the rationale behind it. I guess it's just easier to make simplistic reductions and argue about them.
@Bill
Do you believe that the tale of Onan doesn't enter into most Catholics considerations of contraception?
A paraphrasing of my assessment?
Bill,
You do know that all the parables were already extant in the literature and folklore of the ancient Near East. They were all "imported" and copy/pasted into the gospels by their authors. Don't tell me, you never actually took a course on the extra-Biblical literature of the ancient Near East ? Oh wait. You didn't.
So? What's your point? The parable is still a great description of how some people benefit from wisdom while others are incapable of it.
so why claim it's the word of Jesus?
The point is it's not "unique" in any way.
Wisdom literature exists throughout human culture.
for me the issue with this lie of thinking goes back to why a god would punish people for having infertile soil, when that is a prerequisite for even growing the seed? The whole process is circular and points to a lack or forethought by the god. If fertile soil is necessary, provide it or get out of the god business. And don't make up bogus concepts like " free will" to justify godly incompetence..
Where does it saw the infertile soil is punished? Certainly you're an educated person Sara, where there ever people in your classes who didn't "get it"? Were they punished?
Bill, if someone reads the bible and never gets it what happens? You may not call it "punishment" but "eternal separation from god/joy etc. or some equivalent, but it amounts to the same thing. You don't have the fertile soil, you don't get the reward.
But His burden is light and His yoke is easy Sara. There's absolutely no reason not to get it. In fact, canonically the only way not to "get it" is to absolutely and adamantly refuse to get it.
That's just back to the "free will" cop out again. It's the equivalent of the god of the gaps...anywhere you don't have a psychological or neurobiological understanding of what happened, call it "free will". It's basically chewing gum holding the ethical part of the belief system together.
Yes, It's OK to kiss the man in the dress said no sane parent ever.
As a Lutheran, that is why I can't stand the Catholic religion.
catholic idolaters!
As a Catholic, I feel compelled to inform you that you belong to a religion that has entered into a joint declaration of doctrine. We are of one accord brother and we pray for the rapprochement of all.
Bill, what joint declaration are you referring to? As far as I know the two religions have not agreed that they are unified on this kind of detail but only on more general issues regarding faith. Could you post a link to the declaration text? Thanks..
This guy(Pope) emulates the Teachings of Jesus as found in the Four Gospels better than any Christian leader that I ever remember seeing in my lifetime. Mother Theresa id too.
I'll admit that so far this pope doesn't seem to be as much of an asshat as the previous couple of popes but I would REALLY recommend reading some non-catholic materials about Mother Theresa before making such a statement. I've got some friends that experienced her own special brand of "compassion" and I wouldn't recommend it for anyone.
even in this world of meteorological science, there are still people who pray to saints for good weather.
no wonder religion grows among the uneducated simple folk of the world. a childlike simple mind is required to believe this rubbish (though obviously, as evidenced by this blog, some of the childlike simple minds have advanced enough to type on a computer).
Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer. They admit that many of the miracles in the world around us are hard to understand, and they do not deny that the universe, as modern science sees it, is indeed a far more wondrous thing than the creation medieval man could perceive. But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers, the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of nature without a Divine Intent. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?
Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet, it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airlines through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God.
I have discussed the aspect of a Designer at some length because it might be that the primary resistance to acknowledging the "Case for Design" as a viable scientific alternative to the current "Case for Chance" lies in the inconceivability, in some scientists' minds, of a Designer. The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction.
We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happened by chance.
With kindest regards.
Sincerely,
Wernher von Braun
You're quoting something that is from 1963 but you failed to point out that this rocket scientist was ignored and “intelligent design” was banned from NASA.
Amen!!!
And this guy WAS a Nazi.
That's a very interesting quote from Dr. Von Braun. I'm an AE who works on launch vehicle and satellite mission designs (and some propulsion and thermal analyses as well), and, obviously, he is one of the giants in the field of astronautical engineering. What he said there, about trying not to overlook anything, was kind of echoed in Frank Borman's answer to the congressional panel after the Apollo 1 disaster. The reason he said that tragedy happened was because "of a lack of imagination." Anyway, thanks for sharing it Steve!
Sorry, we have seen an electron, and highly improbable events happen all the time.
Would you like to see one today, on your desk that has the probability of 1/goggleplex ?
"Sorry, we have seen an electron, "
We have? Can I see the picture? As someone who has studied quantum mechanics, I'd love to see a picture of an electron. I didn't realize we'd actually caught a pic of one! Seeing as its mass is only 9.109 x 10E-31 kg, I didn't think it was possible to actually get a pic of one!
Dr. H
http://www.science20.com/news_releases/electron_caught_on_film_for_the_first_time
nearly all things once attributed to divine cause have been determined to be of natural origins. the realm of the supernatural is simply a placeholder of ignorance waiting for the determination of reality.
Yep Werner Von Braun, Isaac Newton, J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Charles Babbage, etc.. all stupid people.
no ... they are all talented people for certain ... unfortunately none of them were able to get past the mental scars of the brainwashing their young minds had received from their parents and priests. the god virus digs into some minds and they never recover.
Either way who cares? Why do people like you care about whether someone believes in something otherworldly or not? Why do atheists bash religion only to do the same thing religions did and still do today which is pressure people to join or quit a religion. People have a right to choose and atheists today are getting pretty aggressive esp in california showing their distaste for religion. But who are you to say someone should or shouldn't believe? Are you in their head? do you know every individuals mindset and how they cope with life and how their life's experiences shaped them? As someone who was raised catholic and just lives life to help others and be a good person not relying on religion I can say I have had it both ways Esp with the strictest catholic form their is as my guide when I was young.. Pre vatican 2.. that is the way I grew up.. went through questioning god's existence and came to one simple point.. If God does exist would he rather have me go sunday to church or go help people. would he want me to live my life fearing judgement to do the right thing or just for me to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do? The point is to live life by being a good person and helping others. That is it.. Some people need religion to show them the way some don't.. I definitely don't now but someday I might.. You might.. Who are you to judge and take away someones support system if they want it? Why do others try to control the religious or lack of religious destiny? Most of the time people who do that to others just project that on others as a distraction from their own problems from which they cannot find an answer or answers to.
Good post, widow.
I'm with you! I don't understand why anyone cares what anyone else believes. As long as we're all good folks, why does it really matter?
"Either way who cares? Why do people like you care about whether someone believes in something otherworldly or not?"
Because Christians try to force their religious views on others through laws. Don't believe me look at abortion, gay rights, etc... or are you really that naive about the history of this country.
Dave, those socies sure know how to talk people into giving up their lives, freedoms, families, rights, property and on and on to the Beasties. Even their own spirits!! The MOB is always lookin' fer leadership. Like Sodom, the Mob float in the parade will be right behind the h0m0se*xual float.
widow, please allow me to invite you back to the mass.
"Because Christians try to force their religious views on others through laws. Don't believe me look at abortion, gay rights, etc... or are you really that naive about the history of this country."
I'm not naive about anything. I've taken American history, I have a PhD in Aerospace Engineering with a lot of graduate work in quantum mechanics (physical chemistry). It's kind of a silly allegation, imo, to characterize the religious as "forcing thier religious views on this country." You could say the same thing about atheists, liberals, etc., doing the same thing. Abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, these are all issues that are in morally gray areas for a lot of Americans. We all have different views on these complicated issues, whether they're founded strictly through an atheist viewpoint, a religious viewpoint, or, like myself and probably most others, a bit of both. These are tough, ethical and moral issues (I grant you some are tougher than others, at least for me) and we all have the right and duty to consider them, to try to make sense of them according to our own consciences, our own views of reality, and vote on them and participate in making decisions on them in free and diplomatic society, hopefully in a civil, sensitive, and mutually respectful manner. In that respect, I see nothing wrong at all for someone to use their religious views, anymoreso than their scientific views, to make decisions on these issues. I read an article in Newsweek or Time years ago when then-Senator Barak Obama argued this very point (he was mad at himself for his answer to Alan Keyes challenging him on being a Christian and supporting a woman's right to abortion). It's ok for us to disagree as long as we don't hold it against each other. Ideally, I wish and would hope that that would be the way it would actually work in this country. It saddens me to admit that this is getting to be less and less the case.
Dr. H
Bill,
Are you actually a deacon, or is that a last name?
Just wondering.
It is naive. Abortion, and the anti-gay marriage use RELIGION to justify forcing their views IN LAW on to the rest of society. Obviously you never really did study History.
@Rocketscientist, A person whao wants to disallow samese.x marriage is forcing people to live without the very real benefits of marriage. This means lack of immigration and inheretence rights, lack of court protections, and in many states lack of even basic heath care rights. On the other side allowing same se.x marriage has zero impact on the marriages of the religious hete.rose.xuals. Same for birth control or any number of other social issues. All of these have some minor economic impacts on both sides, but it is the religious who want to radically control how people can and cannot live their lives on a day to day basis. There is no comparison between a group that wants control and universal dominance and a group that wants freedom and may c ontain people who hope one day their thoughts will win out in the free market of ideas.
@widow
I don't care what people believe in, I care with what they do with that belief. Believe in a deity? Great. Pink elephants? Have at it. Aliens? Knock yourself out.
Just do not presume that I have to share your beliefs or am going to whatever version of hell these things offer up if I choose to not believe.
It would take the most small-minded individual imaginable not to believe in aliens.
Ehhhh... I wouldn't mind seeing an alien if they are out there for my own personal satisfaction, but I'm not holding my breath.
Bippy, "It is naive. Abortion, and the anti-gay marriage use RELIGION to justify forcing their views IN LAW on to the rest of society. Obviously you never really did study History."
No, it's not naive and yes, I did study history in highschool and at the university and am well-informed wrt the news. Please refrain from the baseless and personal insults.
Again, as I said, no one can "force their views," on anyone in this country. It's a democracy, not a dictatorship. We and our representatives vote on issues based on our own personal views, knowledge, and conscience. WRT to ethical and moral issues, i.e. abortion, gay marriage, stem-cell research, cloning, etc., one's conscience, ethics, morality, and, hopefully education should come into play in deciding the issue. In that regard, a person's religious beliefs, if they have them, are a legitimate consideration on how one stands on these moral issues. Again, President Obama and others in politics have this view as well. Obama has said that his own religious beliefs do inform on how he voted on issues in the Senate.
Dr. H
Yes you can force your religious views on people in this country. It's done, and has been done all the time. Obviously you DIDN'T stufy any History, apart from your "Catholic" history. Texas is doing so in the new abortion law, and your church attempts all the time to restrict the rights of gays to get married. "All men are created equal". Obviously your church doesn't get the basic premise of American democracy, and you are too deluded to recognize it.
Bippy
"Yes you can force your religious views on people in this country. It's done, and has been done all the time. "
Again, this is a democracy, isn't it?
"Obviously you DIDN'T stufy any History, apart from your "Catholic" history. "
Obviously, I did, as I got an A or B at a public highschool and at a private university.
"Texas is doing so in the new abortion law, and your church attempts all the time to restrict the rights of gays to get married."
Texas is a democracy. Abortion is an ethical and moral issue. I'm not overly familiar with the ramifications of that law, but while I'm morally opposed to abortion, I don't think a woman's right to choose should be legislated against (except when the fetus is viable). It's a hard issue for me to reconcile, especially being a new dad.
As for gays getting married, again, over 60% of Catholics are for gay marriage, even if their bishops aren't. There are more lay Catholics than bishops, so, if anything, by majority rules, American Catholics are generally for gay marriage.
"All men are created equal". Obviously your church doesn't get the basic premise of American democracy, and you are too deluded to recognize it.
I'm not deluded at all. If I was, my wife, a psychologist with a PhD, probably wouldn't have married me.
Dr. H
Again you continue to conflate the personal with the general. Religionists do try every day to FORCE their religious views onto others, whether you do or not is irrelevant. The founders were well aware of the "tyranny of the majority". It's why this is NOT a democracy. It's a democratic republic. The founders said all men are created EQUAL, and endowed with certain rights" which are NOT subject to votes. YOUR church hierarchy has repeatedly attempted to disenfranchise Americans and FORCE their views on the public. It does not matter what "a majority" of Catholics believe, because in your cult, there is no way for the Spirit to work. In the early church they VOTED on things. Ever since you hierarchy appropriated to itself all the authority, (against the real "tradition" in Christianity), you are the mercy of the old guys in red dresses.
Dr H, not a Deacon, sadly. It's an inside joke where my pseudonym comes from.
Steve, I think you can add Max Planck to that list as well. There are some other famous physicists too.
Maybe add astronauts James Lovell, Frank Borman, and William Anders (Apollo 8) and Dr. Edwin E. Aldrin (Apollo 11), the second man to walk on the moon. Dr. Paul Davies (physicist), Dr. Freeman Dyson, and Dr. (and Rev) John Polkinghorne.
So you can name a few. Einstein made grave errors.
85 % of the National Academy of science are atheists. But it's beside the point.
It's the Argumentum ad Vericundiam, (the fallacy of the argument from authority). They are NOT experts in religion, or the ancient Near East, or Philosophy, or Theology. You cannot claim they have authority, unless they are authorities IN THEIR OWN FIELD. Are you an expert in Heart Surgery ?
Luckily for us none of the people you mention were content with "God did it" as an answer to anything.
@Bippy, Which survey are you referencing? I see that figure for doubters but atheists as in the 60s or 70. Could you provide a link to the data? Thanks.
Bippy
The list wasn't made as evidence for religious belief, it was to counter the claim that people with faith were incapable of cognitive thinking.
Larson and Witham, 1998 "Leading Scientists Still Reject God"
@Bippy, That survey found that 85% "expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God". Specific dispbelief in god was 72.2% with doubt and agnosticism confusing the remainderin an unclear manner. I think we can only clearly claim the 72.2% as atheist since the remaining doubters and agnostics might theoretically still lean toward the existence ofa god...unlessyou have more data?
It is fascinating, by the way, how close this 72.2% figure is to the 72.8% figure for atheism among philosophers worldwide (see Bourget and Chalmers).
Wht even more amazing is how high that number is among Biblical scholars and scholars of Ancient Near Eastern lit and languages in the large universities, I bet it's even higher. They tend to keep their mouths shut. As Bart Ehrman says, "if they only knew".
I'm not a fan of religion but I'd add Francis Collins, Andrei Tarkovsky and Igor Stravinsky to that list.
Reblogged this on Ghost River Studios Blog.