"Pope Francis says ‘ideological Christians’ are a ‘serious illness’ within the Church

You are playing always the full spectrum of all your abilities so it becomes for a Christian impossible to speak with you ... hmmm ...

Adam and Eve are now. Jesus is now. The paradise is now. Hell is now. Your morality is now. ... And I'm sure you understood very well what I said to you - but you decided to ignore this informaiton because it's important for you to win in a war of words a strange form of psychological stability.

I'm sure not one single person in the whole world would think only a little that you are in the near of the quality of a man like Jesus the Christ. Not even the worst enemies of us Christians would believe you this. So why do you say something what makes you in the eyes of everyone in the world to an idiot? Why this self-destruction of every seriosity in a serios way? That's crazy, isn't it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WPz81XENmg

 

If you think so do it. Otherwise you are welcome in the anglo-euro-american nonsense factory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic4PQ-tnwJw

 

Pass me the wine, por favor.

 

I guess you are still missing the point. . .

It is not so much "returning to the Roman Catholic (or other man made) church that matters, it is returning closer to what really matter. .


FAITH in GOD, not faith in the dogmas and doctrines that are all man made!

 

But the logos behind the dogmata and the doctrines is not man made - so within the dogmas and doctrines are always also important elements, if people were seriosly interested in the truth all around and in us. We could not be natural scientists for example if the logos would only be man made and not be a part of the world all around - the logos is indeed a very concrete "thing", even if someone knows nearly nothing about this world. And everywhere in this gigantic universe are the same natural laws and not different natural laws. So not everything is only subjective or intersubjective. I would be happy if the people in the world could accept the very simple paradigma: "Everything is true - until it is not definetelly really wrong". This doesn't mean everyone should believe everything or tolerate everything. Murder for a "good idea" is as less tolerable as murder for a "bad idea" for example - but sometimes contradictions are not really contradictions. We need often centuries and milleniums to find this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9peAsDZwiiQ

 

*I* would let Hindus, Muslims, etc. into heaven, at LEAST if they were moral and did good works. Mr. "the only way to the father is through me" would of course not, so I'm far more moral than that immoral prick. Time to find a new super-hero (or none.)

 

I do not believe that many of the "logos" are dictated by the natural world, but by the ignorance and the lack of opening to the WHOLE world, and the lack of acknowledgement that EVERY human (and I am tempted to say, every living creature) is worthy of equal respect. . .NOT just "men," whom, you have to admit, were the ONLY VOICES to "translate" those logos into dogmas.

One example. . .homosexuality. Homosexuality is found in NATURE, and has ALWAYS existed.
Adultery has ALWAYS existed. . .but only MEN had the opportunity to exercise sleeping with several women (and, no, not just "multiple wives," but also their servants and slaves).
Prostitution (or the selling of one's body for material reward) has ALWAYS existed. . .yes, in nature! When only men were able to "hunt for food," women had only their body to "buy" food from the men. . .that, was PROSTITUTION, even if today, prostitution is no longer to earn FOOD for survival, but money, or drugs, or whatever a woman FEEL she needs for her "survival," it is not different from the "logo" established in the natural "survival of the fittest" that existed at the beginning of time!

I believe that the only "logos" that are valid and truly untouched by men's greed (for power or money) and by man's cultural, and knowledge limitations (some due mostly to time period and/or limitation in the capacity of men to even consider that the earth was round and that other civilizations and way of life existed that they didn't know about), are those "logos" that are innate into our consciousness, often buried in our consciousness, but that trigger our natural drive to do what is TRULLY moral, and not just what "MEN" and "RELIGIOUS DOGMAS" consider "moral!"

 

What's the point of someone having faith in God if they are going to let that mean whatever they want it to mean? The wisdom and inherent philosophy held by the religions of the book is what makes those religions distinct from other faiths. You may as well practice Shinto if the "book" part of the "religions of the book" is not something you are interested in.

Sure, it can be uncomfortable and inconvenient to reject atheists or homosexuals in our day to day lives, but there is a good reason for why we are called to do so.

I find it ironic that Pope Francis says people are too focused upon money, yet it's the focus upon money over other things that has driven the west's decision to start requiring acceptance of homosexuals. They make as much money as anyone else, so why discriminate just because they have overtly open relationships and all that such entails?

 

In my opinion, what is the use of following ONE religion and excluding the validity of others, if all those religions are supposed to be based on the same "book?"
This is in my opinion a very good indication that NO ONE knows what is REALLY in the book, what is "important" and what isn't, what is the word of God and what is the word of man.

I have had plenty of experience with organized religions, including 12 years of Roman Catholic school with nuns and Jesuites as my main teachers. I have a mind of my own (Thank GOD!) and my GOD GIVEN FREE WILL!

Why would I be less able than others to decide what "stories" are congruent with my conscience, my intelligence, and my sense of logic, and which stories do not?

How do you think all those "flavors" of Christianity have come about? By "some people" deciding what they "accepted" and what they "didn't want to accept" in the original Christian story. . .which by the way was obviously Roman Catholicism! What makes you think those "pastors" and "Church leaders" knew that any intelligent, independent minded person cannot figure out by his/herself?

I am accepting of ALL religions (and that includes NON-Christian religions), but I do not feel the need to accept ANYONE without a grain of salt (actually. . a pound of salt!).

You are free to take ANY of the flavors provided to you by organized religions as "the only truth!" I am free to find my own truth. And, believe me, I am in perfect harmony with my internal, universal God. . .

 

I understand that these things are open to interpretation, but only some of them are. People who claim to be Christian, but then want to accept atheists, promiscuous sex or any other things that are explicitly, clearly and categorically rejected, are not really undertaking an interpretation. They are picking cherries as the saying goes.

 

Give me a break! If you want to find "promiscuous sex," look at the main characters of the Bible!. . .

I do not feel the need to adopt ANY doctrine or dogmas in their entirety or reject any that make sense to me, just because one "Church leader" tells me to, or because an atheist find that my believe in God is illogical.

I live by my conscience, and it has served me very well for 63 years. I believe that people of good faith, intelligence, and good will will always find a way to true morality and will live within God's expectations (although it may not meet ANY of the organized Churches expectations.

I respect your beliefs, please allow me to have my own!

 

Well, it's not like I can do anything about it. But I don't consider you a Christian and I don't see why you would consider yourself to be one. If you choose not to respect the book then it is only an accident of birth and geography that has determined your affiliation.

 

It always is.
You wouldn't be the devout Christian you are if you were born in Islamabad.

 

If you really look at the facts with clear, common sense. . . we are ALL dependent on "an accident of birth and geography that determined our affiliation!"

Don't tell me that, if you had been born in China or in Afghanistan, you would have been "a Christian!" The chance of that would have been minute!
And, in fact, that is exactly what I was saying: We (all organized Churches) are dependent on the cultural background that determine what "dogmas" they are exposed to!

For exemple, if you had been born in Italy or Belgium, there is a huge chance that you would have been "Roman Catholic," and if you had been in England, you probably would have been "an Anglican," and if you had been born in Tibet, you would have developed an affinity for Buddhism!

We totally agree with this. . .and this is why I am saying that, after my "dependency on my birth place," where I learned to be a ideal "Roman Catholic" through 12 years of training (brainwashing?) in a Catholic school, I decided that it was time to ask question, and to put my FREE WILL and my INDEPENDENT THINKING in gear. . .and to decide for myself what part of the "Christian dogmas" made sense to me, and which didn't.

And, you may not appreciate this or like it. . .but I feel very much that I am a true Christian, in the sense that I believe that Jesus Christ was an amazing prophet and came to give ALL men (within the "cultural area that was within his reach") a message of love, acceptance, modesty, and hope.

Anything else is just "noise" that was added by MEN.

By the way. . .are you talking about "the Bible" or "the New Testament?" when you refer to "the book!"

Obviously, I do not believe that either has all the answer, or that either are the literal word or message of God, but I find more "common sense" in the New Testament than in the Bible.

But, whether or not YOU consider me a "Christian" or not is very much a moot point for me!

I know who I am,I know what my beliefs are, I know what I don't know and questions that remain, and I know that I am at peace with my conscience.

And, REALLY, this is all that matter.

See you much later. . .we may take different roads. . .but they all lead to the Universal God!

 

your use of the word 'accept' here is interesting. a monarch accepts or rejects. a recruitment selection panel accepts or rejects. and in both cases this acceptance or rejection is limited to the focus of their activity.

you can no more 'not accept' reality than you can fly to the moon without a space ship. reality consists of people shagging - lots. and homosexuality.

 

Are you suggesting that individuals have no ability or right to reject another person? If so that would be silly.

[MENTION=56791]Sadanie[/MENTION], if we assume that people have free will, then we can't entirely attribute one's decision to (for example) be a Christian to (for example, again) being born in the west. For example, I was born in the west and have had some passing interests in Islam. At some point an adult becomes responsible for the things they've done, haven't done, accepted and not accepted.

 

And if you were born in Islamabad you might have had a passing flirtation with Christianity.
But probably not.
There is a reason that approximately 80% of any population claims the predominant faith as their own.
Most folks are theological sheep.

 

So. . .you think that, 2000 years ago, people living in China had "free will" to accept Jesus Christ as their savior?

TODAY we may have full access to all the spectrum of organized religions available to mankind. . .but it has not always been that way!

And I do not believe that GOD would have "decided" to become known to ONLY a small number of human, ALL located in North Africa!

What tells us that GOD didn't make Himself known to other cultures. . .in a way that was "understandable" to those other cultures?

Why would God penalize the greatest percentage of his children by not providing them with a "culturally appropriate" way to "meet" him and be redeemed?

This is the main reason why I do not believe that Jesus Christ is the ONLY means to God or salvation. . .I believe Jesus Christ is ONE Of the prophets who was chosen by God to bring redemption to the world. . .

 

By the way. . .I agree that individuals have the ability to reject another person. . .but CHURCHES, although made of individuals, are supposed to represent GOD

ONLY GOD should have the ability to "reject" anyone. . .and it is arrogance that allows ANY MAN, even religious men, to supersede or to "assume" that they know the will of God where any individual is concerned

 

you can think whatever you like about individuals, but the term 'accept' is tied up with action. it means you will not tolerate or permit something to happen or exist, and that you have the power to carry it through. saying you don't accept something in this context is pompous but toothless.

 

The logos is able to "dictate" lots of different worlds, also lots of differerent natural worlds - nevertheless we live in this world here and our logos comes from here. We are the world.

Hmmm ... I guess I understand what you like to say and you are right to say so - nevertheless I'm not respecting everyone in the same way: I don't respect Nazis for example - or I don't respect the murderers of Malala for example. Do you like to ask why I call this people murderers although Malala lives? Malala would be dead - others saved her life. The good work the doctors made cannot be an excuse for the people who [tried to] murder[ed] her, so I call them "murderers".

That's why homosexuality is not a sin. Never was. But anal sex for example (=homosexual behavior) is a sin. I don't like to discuss now in details about this problem - but I hope you can see the difference.

"Adultery"? ... One moment ... oh - "Ehebruch" ... - thats true. Adultery had always existed and was always a sin. But adultery is not only sex with someone else like the most people seem to think today.

Guess you are wrong. I heard in history about 10% of all children were normally not the children of the man.

Maybe - maybe not. I don't know. I could imagine this is a problem of the first cities and states.

Nonsense. You are producing stereotypes. Example: Werner von Teuffen teaches a lady how to hunt:

Drugs are not survival

"Survival of the fittest" did not exist in the beginning of the time, because in the beginning of the time was no biological life existing and so this expression made no sense there.

Take mathematics as an example for logos: Mathematics is not a science - but a phycicist is nearly helpless without mathematics. When we found new structures in mathematics then we often found also something in the world where we are able to use this mathematics. Jews, Christians and Muslims believe the world here is created [and creating] word (logos) of god. God is not mathematics - but mathematics is an expression of his logos too. Everything in the world is always also an expression of his logos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bzFkyypb8I

 

If I understand you the right way then you called Jesus and all Christians, me too, in this text here "immoral prick" ... one moment ... "amoralischer Scheißkerl" could be a translation ... Aha ... Really astonihing that the universe needed 13.82 billion years, a gigantic size and an unbelievable accuracy in the natural constants to produce immoral pricks like us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcz4vGvoxQA

 

I believe we are talking at cross purpose. This thread is about Pope Francis and religion. . .and the origine of doctrines and dogmas. . .including the veracity of the Bible and how organized religions have determined what is "sin" and "sinful," and why.

Those determinations were obviously made NOT TODAY, but 2000 and more years ago. . .and today's religions are looking at the BIBLE to support their determination of what consist a "sin."

So, we are not talking about women learning to hunt TODAY. . .but about how women didn't have the mean to feed themselves (especially while pregnant) many thousands years ago, and that, basically they had to "sell" their body in exchange for food to men. . .this is the comparison I made with "prostitution" as it is refer as a "sin" in the Bible, at the same level as "homosexuality" and other non-sense!

And why would anal sex (if it is consensual between two adults, of course) be more "sinful" than a blow job or even vaginal sex? And would anal sex be more sinful between two men, then between a man and a woman? DUH!

The same thing applies to adultery. . . I was refer to the time described by the BIBLE. . .where men were allowed many wives, but also were perfectly in their "right" to have sex (and children) with their wives' servants and slaves. . .and, as described in the Bible, even cast their wive's servant AND THEIR SON away into the desert to die when they became "excess luggage" for them! In the other hand. . .IF a woman was having sex with a man that wasn't either its "owner" (for the slaves or servants) or the man their FATHER, BROTHER, or other MALE relative had designated as "her husband," they would have been stoned!

Don't tell me that you know what % of children in Biblical times were children of adultery by women. . . unless you have a "special logo" that allows you to calculate such a statistic from the spare (or nonexistent) data in the Bible!.

I totally understand what you are saying about "logos," but it is precisely what I am stating. . .that prior to the development of math and sciences (and the spreading of education to the greatest majority of people), men made "rules" that were based on VERY FAULTY assumptions, and had free range to make decisions that were entirely self-serving. . .and totally based on nothing more than the NON UNDERSTANDING of natural phenomena (i.e., the "parting of the sea!").

Basically, my opinion is that the BIBLE and NEW TESTAMENT are extremely poor sources for the dogmas and doctrines that survive (and seem to multiply) to these days. And my opinion is that, anyone with intelligence, independent thinking, logic, and good will has as much chance to be "right" about what true moral and true "goodness in the eyes of God" consist of than if following the ancient man made dogmas.

But, it is a personal choice that all must made (if they are capable of making a choice, rather than simply allowing themselves to be brainwashed!). And, as long as the choice they make doesn't hurt their fellow men.. . . I am more than willing to respect those choices.

People do make bad choices, some of them are incredibly destructive to the harmony of this world (i.e., the holocaust, the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, the terrorism, the crusades, . . . mass murders, hate crimes, slavery, etc.. . ) but it is clear that many of those destructive choices were made by self-righteous people who pride themselves in being "religious" and rely (at least in words) on the BIBLE to rationalize their deeds!

 

The example was from the codex manesse of the year 1300-1340. But maybe Nophretete or Cleopatra say also something to you - or Victoria of England - or Katharina of Russia or Maria-Theresia of Austria-Hungaria ...

There's no logic to use a part of the intestsinal tract for sexual reproduction - and it's even dangerous to do so. Last year for example were in Germany about 3500 new infections with aids. Main Group of the infected persons were homosexual men because of anal sex.

No.

If you say so - I don't have any idea what you like to say with this example now - if it is an example and not your fantasy only.

If there was no problem with adultery - why all this laws you are speaking about? I don't remember now the source - but I heard 10% was in all cultures completelly normal.

Good - nice to hear that something what I say is understandable.

It seems to me you did not really understand what I said. Let me try it this way: Within the big bang - from the beginning of the very first moment - was the structure "circle" existing ... otherwise - and now be carefull with your thoughts! - otherwise we could say nothing with our later developed mathematics and sciene about this situaiton what could have to do onyl a little with the true reality there. But we knew nothing about this situaion for example 1000 years ago - although it was the same situation as it is today. Our knowldege makes the things not happening. The things are happening and are changing something in the world - and we are able to see the changes and to ask for the reasons.

survive?

A "dogma" of mathematics is for example "1+1=2". What says the age of this "dogma" about wether this "dogma" is right or wrong?

And the worst is: Christians made even the wrong color of your shampoo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSYPr5OpoGg

 

We obviously will never understand each other or gain anything constructive in speaking at cross purpose.

So, whatever you say, if it makes you happy (including the color of my shampoo!)

However, I believe that comparing religious dogmas (such as resurrection of Christ) to mathematical facts are at the least false equivalencies. . .

But whatever you say!