Pope on gays : "Who am I to judge?"

[Neil]

Well I can only repeat the previous posts in this thread: if he is speaking otherwise than previous Popes, while Popes have like the hotline to God than either:

a) this Pope is false, and since this could happen, Catholicism is fake
b) the anti-gay Popes were false,  and since this could happen, Catholicism is fake
c) they have no clue what God`s intentions are, so Catholicism is fake

Are you some kind of fucking retard?  Of course religion isn't really true.  But that doesn't much matter, does it?

Depends.

No, it really doesn't.

[The Minsky Moment]

You jinxed it. 

At least he silenced the wine heresy.
We already have enough trouble here with the false champagne idolators.

[garbon]

You jinxed it. 

At least he silenced the wine heresy.
We already have enough trouble here with the false champagne idolators.

Power to the people.

[Barrister]

You jinxed it. 

At least he silenced the wine heresy.
We already have enough trouble here with the false champagne idolators.

IF IT BUBBLES IT'S CHAMPAGNE!

[Barrister]

That's an option for some. For others, it isn't. No one is saying that religion is right for everyone, though Viking and Tamas seem to be claiming that a lack of religion should be.

I am saying that religion is right for everyone.  In particular, Christianity is right for everyone. 

[garbon]

You jinxed it. 

At least he silenced the wine heresy.
We already have enough trouble here with the false champagne idolators.

IF IT BUBBLES IT'S CHAMPAGNE!

[merithyn]

That's an option for some. For others, it isn't. No one is saying that religion is right for everyone, though Viking and Tamas seem to be claiming that a lack of religion should be.

I am saying that religion is right for everyone.  In particular, Christianity is right for everyone. 

Since when has what you said ever counted?

[Barrister]

That's an option for some. For others, it isn't. No one is saying that religion is right for everyone, though Viking and Tamas seem to be claiming that a lack of religion should be.

I am saying that religion is right for everyone.  In particular, Christianity is right for everyone. 

Since when has what you said ever counted?

[Razgovory]

I'm not sure why Viking and Tamas are making such a fuss.

religion is one if the few things its still ok to be bigoted about (on either side)

well, it's not really bigotry if it's true. But even if it was, "still" ?



"STILL"?

   All Bigots think their hatreds are justified.

[Viking]

While doubtlessly what the priest said during mass was different from what St. Augustine was writing.  Different audiences, different mediums make that inevitable.

But since you were already proven wrong about the church treating the bible as a "divine instruction manual" until the enlightenment, I am going to have to ask you to provide some link or proof that states the church told laypeople it was a "divine instruction manual".  My understanding is that the medeival catholic church didn't spend much or any time talking about the bible period.

Not different mediums, different content.

As for the bible. It is the only source of revealed truth. It is in fact THE collection of revealed truth according to the Catholic Church. Dei Verbum asserts this (do your own fuckin' googling, as PP did point out, I'm not wasting my time on you) and that was from the 1960's. It is also intended to be understood as the writers understood it, your "changing understanding of god" is actually heretical to catholicism... though that seems to depend on the pope.

But it seems you are wasting your time with me, as you continue to post and reply.

Given your no doubt honest mistake on the history of christian theology on the previous page I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't just accept what you assert about the history of christian theology.

Indeed even here Dei Verbum does not seem to say what you thinks it says.  On your invitation I did google Dei Verbum.  It states that while the bible is the sole source of "Sacred Scripture", it is not the only source of knowledge - that Sacred Tradition is also important.

And quite contrary to what you said, it says that although the Bible was inspired by God, it often uses "literary forms" that require the reader to carefully consider what the writer's intention was.

Which, in this case, is a red herring. It is the sole source of revelation and as such is gods big book of instructions. Which is what you asked me to show. Yes, sole source of sacred scripture does mean it is the "divine instruction manual". The Bible, (the book = manual) is the sole source of gods (god = the divine) revelation (what is revealed? gods instructions). Dei Verbum says this in words you can understand and apparently repeat back to me. But as for reading comprehension I repeat "Gods Instruction Manual" = "Sole Source of Divine Revelation".

As for sacred tradition. Dei Verbum also goes Antoinin Scalia Style Originalist and insists that the intention of the divinely inspired authors is what interpretation is supposed to discover. There is no changing understanding of god, the Gospel writers GOT IT RIGHT, or so says the Catholic Church. God wasn't deceiving the Gospel writers or telling them stuff they didn't understand. The catholic church claims the gospel writers understood the truth and, with inspiration from the holy spirit, wrote down what they understood as best the could.

[crazy canuck]

You jinxed it. 

At least he silenced the wine heresy.
We already have enough trouble here with the false champagne idolators.

IF IT BUBBLES IT'S CHAMPAGNE!

You are worse than Tamas, Viking and Dawkins combined

[Viking]

so, thats like almost 700 years after Philo of Alexandria... That just adds a second gripe, the different ways the religion was discussed with laymen and scholars. The two are nothing like each other.

More like 350 . . .It isn't surprising that laymen and scholars  see things differently.  Your average illiterate late antique paganus convert is going to have pretty simplified ideas about religion that indeed are likely to be indistinguishable from magic.

Of course the same could be said for the hard sciences.  The chairman of the physics department probably thinks about science differently from the way that your typical "jaywalker" would - the latter probably viewing the theoretical science as mumbo-jumbo and its applications as essentially magical in nature ("how does my cell phone work? it just does.")

Thats not an analogy that fits.  Cell-phones are completely new and religion has nothing to say about them. However, the technical mumbo jumbo explanation is of course unintelligible for anybody without a good understanding of electronics and radio waves. Religion says "it just does", Science say "it is an electrical apparatus that uses radiowaves to communicate". One is a simplification and the other is just wrong. Just like saying that the noahs ark story is literally true is just wrong while "it is a story meant to elucidate on the nature and will of god" is simplification.

[The Brain]

I kind of liked Ricky Gervais' story of Noah's Ark.

[Viking]

Moses had doubts about himself and his self worth. When god gave him tangible evidence (something he refuses to do for me), moses had none.

Not so - he kept disobeying, up until the very end.  Recall why he was not permitted to enter the promised land.
Moses' resistance and disobedience is very significant; it is part of a core literary trope that runs throughout the entire OT.

Again, he had doubts about his self worth and his ability to carry out gods will. It was his lack of faith in himself that was punished. Moses was unsure when god didn't fill in the details or when god told him what to do at the last moment. It's a repeated case of God saying do X, moses repsonding I don't think X will workd, God saying, just do as I say, Moses obeying, doing X then God doing some sort of magic to succeed (except where god hardens faro's heart, just to make sure faro is enough of a dick to warrant god murdering the first born of egypt).

It is not disobedience I brought up, I brought up his doubt, he never doubts gods ability and he never disobeys.

[Viking]

Viking and Tamas are fundamentally right - there is a very basic problem with the claims that religious beliefs ought to inform our actions, while at the same time accepting that those religious beliefs are not in fact the product of some form of external revelation in some fashion, but simply the consequences of societal norms. Why not just let the societal norms coupled with out personal views and perceptions inform our actions, and leave the religion out of it?

Because for many people, religion is completely intertwined withe those social norms, views, and perceptions, so what you propose is not possible.

And if it isn't what is the point of religion? Seriously, you gonna argue religion is not about morality? At least in part?