Marxist Pope Francis Calls America Catholics 'Backwards'

a reply to: FlyersFan

The twerp should send American Catholic's money back. Geeesh. He's almost as bad as arrogant mean U.S. President Joe Biden.

a reply to: tanstaafl

The Bible almost everyone follows today was canonized by catholics, and then revised slightly over the years by various popes and Christian "interpretations", such as Martin Luther, etc.

What I'm finding hard to follow is that you claim to be "spiritual" (pantheism) but the way you defend the Bible I'm going to guess you get your morals and ethics from there, which means since you believe in a God by proxy makes you Christian in that sense.

Violence in the Bible, old and new testament is riddled throughout the Bible. Old testament is nothing but violence and since most Christians worship Jesus his word is just as good as God's and anytime Jesus is mentioned references to new ages, new beginnings, damnation on certain people - Matthew 10:15 when he says "it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town - and violence surrounds him, even to his death where he's crucified.

The book of revalation is nothing but a cal to arms for Christians to band together when times get tough, and encourages violence agaisnt non Christians.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: FlyersFan

The twerp should send American Catholic's money back. Geeesh. He's almost as bad as arrogant mean U.S. President Joe Biden.

he's not a lot different to all the other elitists like biden, their biggest fear is being made irrelevant which they are.. its the clue we're in a new reformation and the reality of what sovereignty really means, its personal, like being able to get salvation without the popes approval.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: tanstaafl

What I'm finding hard to follow is that you claim to be "spiritual" (pantheism)

Why is it that some people just can't help themselves and have to ass-u-me something that ends up being false.

I am not a pantheist. I don't fit in any box - but go ahead, try to label me again.

but the way you defend the Bible

Where pray tell have I defended the Bible? In fact, I have done the opposite.

I'm going to guess you get your morals and ethics from there,

I get my morals from the golden rule - treat others as I would be treated. That said, I also don't take # from anyone, and while I do forgive those who actually repent, I also don't hesitate to dish out an eye for an eye when it is deserved.

which means since you believe in a God by proxy makes you Christian in that sense.

Nope. Wrong again, as usual.

A Christian is one who has accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. I haven't because I cannot believe in my heart something that is both unprovable and irrational.

Violence in the Bible, old and new testament is riddled throughout the Bible. Old testament is nothing but violence and since most Christians worship Jesus his word is just as good as God's and anytime Jesus is mentioned references to new ages, new beginnings, damnation on certain people - Matthew 10:15 when he says "it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town - and violence surrounds him, even to his death where he's crucified.

All of which are reasons I don't believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God - if there is such a God of Abraham.

The book of revalation is nothing but a cal to arms for Christians to band together when times get tough, and encourages violence agaisnt non Christians.

I haven't seen any calls for violence gainst non Christians, but I have seen numerous passges saying the opposite.

So, if you are going to make that claim, then cite the chapter and verse please.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Don't try and label you? You are just getting back what you give, sorry, live by the Golden rule, which includes karma.
You stated you were spiritual, that's aligned with the likes of Alan watts, and pantheist.

Yet you were defending the Bible, and claim to have actually read it (I'm assuming you haven't tho since you keep asking me for quotes) the old testament is riddled with murder, genocide, infanticide, child sacrifice, etc.

So what are we supposed to think of you? Are you just here to shift your opinions around the goal post and argue in bad faith? Take a position and you'll be taken seriously. Noticing and admitting the Bible has these stories woven into its religion isn't admitting defeat I feel like your arguing for the sake of just arguing.

Edit:

I should also point out that, even as an atheist I know that the golden rule isn't nearly close enough for humans to gain some sort of moral and ethical code.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: tanstaafl

Don't try and label you? You are just getting back what you give, sorry,

Really? Where did I label you?

You stated you were spiritual, that's aligned with the likes of Alan watts, and pantheist.

Never heard of him or pantheism until you brought it up. I use the term in a very general way.

Meaning, I believe there is more to life than just we live, then we die. I believe we have spirits - souls if you will - that survive death. Exactly what or how is beyond my current knowledge. I submit it is beyond anyone's current knowledge, but I try not to speak for others.

Yet you were defending the Bible,

Nope. If you want to claim I'm defending it, prove it. Quote something where I'm 'defending the Bible'.

and claim to have actually read it

I read it cover to cover when I was very young. I've read and studies numerous passages during a few year period when we were breaking things down by comparing certain passages in many different Bibles, and using Concordances that ended up showing just how badly the current words compare to the original texts.

I don't claim to be even remotely expert though.

(I'm assuming you haven't tho since you keep asking me for quotes)

I'm asking you to back up what you are claiming it says by citing chapter and verse.

You obviously can't since all you're doing is deflecting.

the old testament is riddled with murder, genocide, infanticide, child sacrifice, etc.

It is riddled with stories like that, yes, but again...

Point to one, just one, citation where the Bible commands Christians to commit genocide against non believers.

You can't, because it isn't there - though it is in the Koran.

So what are we supposed to think of you?

Whatever you like, I couldn't care less.

Are you just here to shift your opinions around the goal post and argue in bad faith?

I'm here to point out when you do what you are accusing me of.

Take a position and you'll be taken seriously. Noticing and admitting the Bible has these stories woven into its religion isn't admitting defeat I feel like your arguing for the sake of just arguing.

You use the existence of these stories to suggest they are something more than what they are... stories.

They are not a commandment, they are not even a suggestion of how Christians should act toward non believers. They are stories of things that happened a long time ago (maybe some did, maybe some didn't really actually happen, many are likely allegorical).

I should also point out that, even as an atheist I know that the golden rule isn't nearly close enough for humans to gain some sort of moral and ethical code.

Of course not, but it can serve as a starting point. Like the concept that 'your Rights end where mine begin'.

You want a definition of my moral and ethical code? Go read 'The Virtue of Selfishness', 'Atlas Shrugged', and 'The FountainHead' by Ayn Rand.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Quote mine posting should be a banable offense...

Anyways..

To get the Bible nonsense sorted out, and we've seem to have come full circle, I pointed out earlier in the thread how "just stories" have been used in the past to justify atrocities. The book / story of Ham was used well into the Middle ages to justify keeping slavery open for business.

The entire books of Deuteronomy and Joshua go on and on about pesky cannanites, to finally have their day of judgement when the time was right.

That in there lay the issues of "just stories", because we know what those stories can turn into when pr if things get bad, the Middle East is a prime example, leave a massive power vacuum and religious extremists thrive. What the book says, goes. Christians aren't super humans, they're people too and if push comes to shove they will look to their moral code for guidance.
And the scary part is, how many Christians groups hope for end times to come? Pray for Jesus to return?

~~

I see your point on spirituality, thanks for clarifying, I was only trying to pin point exactly what you meant, but I have to disagree on the Ayn Rand point... and it makes a lot of sense on how you post. But, at least give credit where it's due, Nathaniel Brandon wrote most of the philosophy on objectivism...

Also, I don't know why your posts are being removed...

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: tanstaafl

Quote mine posting should be a banable offense...

What the hell is 'quote mine posting'???

I see your point on spirituality, thanks for clarifying, I was only trying to pin point exactly what you meant, but I have to disagree on the Ayn Rand point...

You're disagreeing with my personal declaration that those 3 books come the closest to encapsulating my moral and ethical code?

Dude, you have serious control issues. Sorry, but you have no say in where I get my moral compass from.

But, at least give credit where it's due, Nathaniel Brandon wrote most of the philosophy on objectivism...

I'm not saying he had nothing to do with it, but are you seriously suggesting that he was the true author of Ayn's books?

a reply to: tanstaafl

Sorry I misread that last part. I didn't mean it like that.

But, I'm still in disagreement with Rands philosophy as being a sound moral compass. Most of the works I've read by her seem to just be her questioning how other people find morality, not much substance into how her ideology can add to someone's personal experience and journey through life.

AGAIN - what the hell is 'quote mine posting' that you are accusing me of and think I should be banned for doing?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: tanstaafl

Sorry I misread that last part. I didn't mean it like that.

What part? Dude, learn how to inline quote, so people know what you are referring to.

But, I'm still in disagreement with Rands philosophy as being a sound moral compass.

It's a free country. I disagree. I think her philosophy is quite sane and rational.

Most of the works I've read by her seem to just be her questioning how other people find morality, not much substance into how her ideology can add to someone's personal experience and journey through life.

Then you haven't really read her works with discernment.

"I swear by my life and love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

originally posted by: Satanwasframed
Meh the entirety of catholicism and Christianity is Marxist. Hell, Christians want global genocide for all of the unbelievers. Throw us in a lake of fire if I remember correctly. The abrahamic religions preach hatred, genocide, slavery, rape, conquering, and more.

You hit the nail on the head .

originally posted by: FlyersFan
The conspiracy - He's not a 'pope', he's a South American Anti-Catholic Marxist hell bent on the downfall of America and the Catholic Church.

From what he has done in the past it is easy to see that he hates America and wants us to have wide open borders and wants a downfall for us in the world. He won't be happy until we are like a poor of South America hovel. He constantly attacks actual Catholics deriding them for being Catholic. And now he specifically calls out American Catholics as 'backwards' for not bending to his anti-Catholic and anti-American ways. He has famously said that it was an “honor” to be attacked by Americans.

I say that he's not really the pope because, even though the rules allow for a pope to resign, only one pope can be anointed by God at a time to be Vicar of Christ. And an anointing by God doesn't just go away because someone wants to retire, it lasts forever. Benedict was, according to Catholic teaching, anointed by God to be Vicar of Christ. "Francis" can't also be anointed to be Vicar of Christ. So "Francis" election was not valid, IMHO.

AP News - Pope Francis Calls American Catholics 'Backwards'

ROME (AP) — Pope Francis has blasted the “backwardness” of some conservatives in the U.S. Catholic Church, saying they have replaced faith with ideology and that a correct understanding of Catholic doctrine allows for change over time.

The 86-year-old Argentine acknowledged his point, saying there was “a very strong, organized, reactionary attitude” in the U.S. church, which he called “backward.” He warned that such an attitude leads to a climate of closure, which was erroneous.

“Doing this, you lose the true tradition and you turn to ideologies to have support. In other words, ideologies replace faith,” he said.

“The vision of the doctrine of the church as a monolith is wrong,” he added. “When you go backward, you make something closed off, disconnected from the roots of the church,” which then has devastating effects on morality.

“I want to remind these people that backwardness is useless, and they must understand that there’s a correct evolution in the understanding of questions of faith and morals,” that allows for doctrine to progress and consolidate over time.

Francis has previously acknowledged the criticism directed at him from some U.S. conservatives, once quipping that it was an “honor” to be attacked by Americans

Please explain where in the bible it lays out the protocol for election of Gods mouthpiece on Earth ?
Vicars of Christ & special anointing of one man is all made up fantasy by crooked men with power & greed burning in their furnaces .
So a made up position in a 3/4s made up religion is doing what now with it’s Vicar ?

a reply to: tanstaafl

What part? Dude, learn how to inline quote, so people know what you are referring to.

Learn to make properly structured essay format arguments on platforms like this. This isn't 4chan or a chat box. Picking apart someone's arguments, mining for specific quotes and then making quick witted remarks about them just confuses the reader or the person you're trying to adamantly get into heated arguments with.

Good luck!

a reply to: strongfp

You're funny, you know that. not in the inteligente way however.
just skip the argument, make it about the format, sprinkle with a little victim mentality because it's really mean to be quoted and dissected. Lol... trow in 8chan for good deflection manners and we have a great comedic relive

a reply to: Terpene

He asked. I answered.

Go back.