pope to the rest of you...

[David Jamieson]

apparently, your **** is fake...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070710-1255-pope-otherchristians.html

[Shaolinlueb]

just what we needed. instead of Jews and Muslims fighting, it will be Protestants and Catholics again. like the "good ole time" in Northern Ireland.

[5Animals1Path]

I know I haven't read the entire New Testament, let alone the various versions of it, but I don't remember Jesus ever saying I had to follow another man to follow him.

I could be wrong though. Maybe instead of the son of God speaking for me, it'll be a German with a thing for Prada shoes. :o

[Notintheface]

The new Pope just looks ****ing evil to me...... I want his head checked for the mark!

[Samurai Jack]

Religious intolerance is the backbone of Christianity. It is the entire purpose of the missionary imperaritive, baptism, the holy eucharist, and ultimately Christ's crucifiction. The essential message is;

1.We have the answers.

2.You don't.

3.Convert or be da mned.

Why is anyone surprised by this?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Ratzinger reminds me of the Evil emperor from Starwars.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Religious intolerance is the backbone of Christianity. It is the entire purpose of the missionary imperaritive, baptism, the holy eucharist, and ultimately Christ's crucifiction. The essential message is;

1.We have the answers.

2.You don't.

3.Convert or be da mned.

Why is anyone surprised by this?

Incorrect, never mistake what something is for what people have made it.

[rogue]

As a Roman Catholic all I can say is...

Whoooo hoooooo! We're number one!

And remember, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. :p

[lkfmdc]

This is his second controversial move in two weeks, first the return of the Latin mass with the prayer against the jews, now this.... so much for trying to build on John Paul's legacy :rolleyes:

From a historical perspective, it seems that as soon as the primary figure in a religion is no longer around, peopel muck it up....

Study what Jesus himself taught and preached, understand what it meant in his day and in his context (psst he was a JEW), and compare it to the current Church, sad state of affairs. Much of it traces to Paul, a guy who never even met Jesus and whom Jesus' brother James disagreed strongly with

Similar situation in Islam, to the point that the actual family of Mohammed was slaughtered by the "majority"

[sanjuro_ronin]

This is his second controversial move in two weeks, first the return of the Latin mass with the prayer against the jews, now this.... so much for trying to build on John Paul's legacy :rolleyes:

From a historical perspective, it seems that as soon as the primary figure in a religion is no longer around, peopel muck it up....

Study what Jesus himself taught and preached, understand what it meant in his day and in his context (psst he was a JEW), and compare it to the current Church, sad state of affairs. Much of it traces to Paul, a guy who never even met Jesus and whom Jesus' brother James disagreed strongly with

Similar situation in Islam, to the point that the actual family of Mohammed was slaughtered by the "majority"

Very true, too true.
Now the Pope wants to give the "real" interpretation of the Vatican II council, too bad that all that were there are now dead...:rolleyes:

The fact that JC preached love and acceptence is irrelevant to these a-holes.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

The fact that JC preached love and acceptence is irrelevant to these a-holes.

Reply]
Which is why I abandoned the Catholic church before my balls even dropped.

[synack]

But he's infallible :rolleyes:

[SPJ]

I think somewhere in the bible;

if 2 or 3 people gets together, then a church/commune is formed.

the head of the churche is GOD.

the church is the body.

we are part of the body.

etc etc.

:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

The corner stone of faith is faith, belief, NOT organized religion, as much as the different churches want people to believe it, they speak for NO ONE.

[SevenStar]

The corner stone of faith is faith, belief, NOT organized religion, as much as the different churches want people to believe it, they speak for NO ONE.

while this is true, spj hit it on the head. The bible states that where at least 2 or 3 come together, God will be among them. THAT is the basis for gathering at church - believers gathering to be in the presence of God. Naturally, this would spawn various organizations.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The problem isn't really "organized" religion, its Dogma, the problem is that too many people put faith in other people rather than the teachings of which ever prophet their faith is based on.
People tell them to kill or that only THIS religion is the true one and instead of reading and judging for themselves, they believe what they are being told, even if it is in B&W against the very core of the faith the decided to follow.

[SevenStar]

does the bible not say that those who do not believe in God shall parish? Does it not say "put no other gods before Me"? Does it not say that if you choose not to know God in life, then He will not know you in death?

the bible definitely says that christianity is the one true way to salvation.

[sanjuro_ronin]

does the bible not say that those who do not believe in God shall parish? Does it not say "put no other gods before Me"? Does it not say that if you choose not to know God in life, then He will not know you in death?

the bible definitely says that christianity is the one true way to salvation.

Ah, interpretation is a *****...
Now you just have to "explain" what it means to "believe", to "put no other gods" and what "to know God" means...

[RonH]

Ratzinger reminds me of the Evil emperor from Starwars.

At least Palpatine had cool powers. He threw senatorial pods like paper, shot lighting and could do lots of flips with a lightsabre. What's Ratzinger done? He put on some clothes.

[lkfmdc]

does the bible not say that those who do not believe in God shall parish? Does it not say "put no other gods before Me"? Does it not say that if you choose not to know God in life, then He will not know you in death?

the bible definitely says that christianity is the one true way to salvation.

Ah, but Jesus, being a Jew mind you, said that in order to believe in G'd and follow the way, you had to be JEWISH and follow the torah, Moses' law.... Today, no one in the Catholic church is following the law of Moses, so they must all be going to Heck in a handbasket huh?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Ah, but Jesus, being a Jew mind you, said that in order to believe in G'd and follow the way, you had to be JEWISH and follow the torah, Moses' law.... Today, no one in the Catholic church is following the law of Moses, so they must all be going to Heck in a handbasket huh?

he also said that ALL that believe in him shall be saved....

[lkfmdc]

he also said that ALL that believe in him shall be saved....

Did HE say that, or did people AFTER him say that? There is a huge community and discussion regarding what is original and what has been added and/or altered. See "miquoting Jesus" for example!

[sanjuro_ronin]

Did HE say that, or did people AFTER him say that? There is a huge community and discussion regarding what is original and what has been added and/or altered. See "miquoting Jesus" for example!

If you take ONE part as Gospel, all is, if you question one part, ALL must be questioned.

[lkfmdc]

If you take ONE part as Gospel, all is, if you question one part, ALL must be questioned.

Unlike Mohammed, Jesus did not establish his community, administer to it and create his church. What we have are accounts of his teachings. The earliest ones, Paul, are written by a man who by his own admission never knew Jesus in life and whom broke with the traditions that Jesus had established. We also know that Paul's teachings conflicted with those of James, Jesus' brother.

The four gospels were written generations after Jesus, and they contradict eachother. It would be irrational and foolish to take them as unquestionable and perfect

Furthermore, when we know that Jesus and the first generation were Jews, raised in that tradition, we know that you can not interpret sacred writings in that manner, as that is not how they are interpreted in Jewish tradition and that Jesus and his first generation followers would have never accepted them in that form

[sanjuro_ronin]

Unlike Mohammed, Jesus did not establish his community, administer to it and create his church. What we have are accounts of his teachings. The earliest ones, Paul, are written by a man who by his own admission never knew Jesus in life and whom broke with the traditions that Jesus had established. We also know that Paul's teachings conflicted with those of James, Jesus' brother.

The four gospels were written generations after Jesus, and they contradict eachother. It would be irrational and foolish to take them as unquestionable and perfect

Furthermore, when we know that Jesus and the first generation were Jews, raised in that tradition, we know that you can not interpret sacred writings in that manner, as that is not how they are interpreted in Jewish tradition and that Jesus and his first generation followers would have never accepted them in that form

You mean that Paul's were the earliest DIRECT writings.
Contridictions in the gospels are interpretative.
Where is the info that James and Paul's teachings conflicted with one another?

[synack]

The whole thing is a farce...


*puts on flamesuit*

[Shaolinlueb]

we forget that jesus was a radical jew.
there are scholars that claim jesus was a desicple of john the baptist before he broke off and formed his own sect. also the majority of jesus's first follower's came from john's sect.

organized christianity came much later.

[Mas Judt]

The Pope is only considered infallible in matters of scripture.

I'm not sure sure that everything the pope is doing is 'evil' oooh, the Pope has brought back the old mass. While a lot of garbage has been done in the name of the church, so too has a great deal of good - and in our current age we seem to focus only on the bad parts (and often are badly misinformed and react strongly to things that weren't always so.).

The pope is following a strategy to bring back the hardcore believers back to the fold, and to reincorporate splinter groups - all they have to do is recognize the reforms of Vatican 2 and they can continue the old traditions. He is shoring up his base in a world where killing our own children is a 'choice.'

I look at the Catholic church as an ally in emphasizing morality in a society where anything goes to a point where human life is devalued and personal liberty is eroded. Nothing is perfect, especially human organizations - and frankly ALL big Christian churches feel they have the 'lock' on the truth.

for fun, look up the sedevacantists... whoo boy.

FYI... religous studies is an old hobby of mine. All religions, all cultures. It's better than MTV.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Acceptance, not alienation, brings people "back into the fold".
Tolerance and love, brings people back into the fold.
hardcore beleivers will believe what they want, how they want, period.

Morality is a tricky slope, hard to preach morals when you are corrupt.

Guiding people to faith is one thing, threating them to it is another.

[lkfmdc]

You mean that Paul's were the earliest DIRECT writings.
Contridictions in the gospels are interpretative.
Where is the info that James and Paul's teachings conflicted with one another?

There are MANY contradictions, I'll give you a reading list by respected scholars but start with "Misquoting Jesus" which is a current book on the subject

James considered himself and all of Jesus followers JEWS. They had to be circumcized (sp?) and they had to follow the law of Moses, ie they had to be Kosher, they had to make sacrifices at the temple, etc

Paul rejected this, he preached to the gentiles, while remarkably remaining true to Judaism himself, read "Rabbi Paul" for example

[sanjuro_ronin]

There are MANY contradictions, I'll give you a reading list by respected scholars but start with "Misquoting Jesus" which is a current book on the subject

James considered himself and all of Jesus followers JEWS. They had to be circumcized (sp?) and they had to follow the law of Moses, ie they had to be Kosher, they had to make sacrifices at the temple, etc

Paul rejected this, he preached to the gentiles, while remarkably remaining true to Judaism himself, read "Rabbi Paul" by Sponge for example

And yet Jesus at one point said that a non-jew ( a roman I think, but a non-jew for sure) would enter the kingdom of heaven before a jew because he accepted Him.

I am paraphrasing of course.

[Mas Judt]

One of the funniest conversations I ever listened too was a debate between a fundamentalist Christian and a Jewish Rabbi. I supplied the beer and it was a cracking good time... as you can imagine, it did not go well for the former.

[lkfmdc]

Three books that anyone interested in the subject of the Church should read

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-4380856-1651602?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184176306&sr=1-1

Misquoting Jesus
by Bart D. Ehrman

http://www.amazon.com/Liberating-Gospels-Reading-Bible-Jewish/dp/0060675578/ref=pd_sim_b_3_img/105-4380856-1651602?ie=UTF8&qid=1184176577&sr=1-2

Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes
by John Shelby Spong

http://www.amazon.com/Rabbi-Paul-Intellectual-Bruce-Chilton/dp/0385508638/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-4380856-1651602?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184176712&sr=1-1

Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography (Paperback)
by Bruce Chilton

[Mas Judt]

You know, I always liked the phrase that you would know somebody by the fruits of thier labors - I've seen a lot of good stuff come out of the Christian communities - outrageous charity work - hospitals, helping the elderly, the abandoned, on and on...

While our 'elites' who feel themselves above such things never give to charity are, if anything, fairly heartless.

So, while some Christian groups do scare me with their complete abdication of rationality, most I find make great neighbors.

[lkfmdc]

Spong's book is fascinating... for example, the discussion of Jesus' work healing, and exorcising... only really understood in the conext of his Judaism

The original gospels were written in Greek, and the word we know know as "leprosy" (sp?) wasn't confined to just that disease at the time in Greek. It meant any skin infection or ailment. Of course, any skin condition meant a person was "unclean" and could not make sacrifices at the temple. Jesus "healed them" making them clean so they could re-join the community (the JEWISH community) and make sacrifices

Jesus was striving to champion those alienated by the established order at the time, which is why he butted heads with the temple. His affiliation with John was similarly controversial, babtism in the light of G'd, not necessarily in a pool set up by the temple.

Quite similar to Mohammed, very positive, very egalitarian, communial.... only to be radically changed by those that came AFTER HIM

[Water Dragon]

Religious intolerance is the backbone of Christianity. It is the entire purpose of the missionary imperaritive, baptism, the holy eucharist, and ultimately Christ's crucifiction. The essential message is;

1.We have the answers.

2.You don't.

3.Convert or be da mned.

Why is anyone surprised by this?


Naw, sounds like what 99 % of the posters here say about their Kung Fu, or MMA.

The Pope isn't saying anything that hasn't been Christian Doctrine for a long time. It's not like nobody knew this already.

Here's an interesting wrench to the whole 'which Christianity is better' debate. The modern Church, Catholic and Protestant is based off of Paul's version of Christianity. The bible also clearly states that PETER was the rock the Church was to be built on. I guess that means we're all missing the mark. <-- bonus point if you got the 'missing the mark' reference.

[mantis108]

People don't call him a conservative Pope for nothing. But then again, Catholicism is loosing it's edge on all fronts. I believe he feels that Catholicism has been experiencing the deconstruction phase and the intellectual underpinning has been largely neglected. I think he feels the need to have his archbishops and bishops to really work on theological issues. Perhaps through vigorous debates and participation of the intellectuals, he could bring a renaissance of sort in order to re-establish a standard constitution of Churches. Now if people can be ordained through on-line "Churches", you have got to ask yourself what would you do if you are the Pope and you, at least if your own evaluation, are the only real deal in the game. ;)

If the whole exercise is about touching roots and perparing for the future, it's not entirely a bad thing. But it could be also interpreted as Catholicism is trying to assert itself on the scene of organized religion.

The poor guy certainly has a lot on his plate.

Mantis108

BTW, didn't he get rid of the concept of Limbo?

[sanjuro_ronin]

IF the Pope wants to "save" RC, he need to reform the Vatican first and then he will be in a position to "lead by example".

[Firehawk4]

If one one wants to know what is original Christianity they should look up what is called Jewish Christianity and i dont mean Jews that are taught Gentile Christianity , basicaly there are two factions within Jewish Christianity they are Nazarean Jewish Christianity and Ebionite Jewish Christianity , The Ebionites dont fully agree with the Nazareans as the Ebiontes some of them come from the Pharasis these where Pharasis diciples of Christ in the early Church , The Ebionites believe that Jesus was just a Prophet and that the Christ decended upon him at his baptism but the Nazareans believe that Jesus whas Christ incarnate in other words that he was God in the flesh . What happen in the early church is there was a split in the church about Paul the Ebionite Jewish Christians do not except Paul or his writings where as the nazareans do . Both groups claim to come from the diciples and James the Just Jesus brother as there leaders . The Ebionites and Nazareans practiced a very strict kind of Christianity that is they followed the Jewish Law that is the Ten Commandments the added Law that is called the Mosaic Law or Leviticle Law there is a difference between the Ten Commandments and the added Mosaic Law or Leviticle Law or added Law the Mosiac Leviticle Law will have you keeping Jewish Holydays and ordinances these ordinaces and Holydays James said the Gentile Christians did not have to keep only that Gentile Christians abstan from things Sacrficed to Idols, Fornication and one other but i cant remember what it is some of it is written in Acts 15 on the Gentiles , the Ebionite Jewish Christians rejected Paul and the Gentiles that did not keep these Jewish Laws but the Nazarean Jewish Christians excepted them . There was also the Sacrafishle Law that was done away with when Jesus died on the Cross so that Law was done away with , Jewish Christianity Basicaly kept the Ten Commandments , Sabbath , Holydays Food Laws , It was very Jewish . After the Temple fell in 68 AD the Jewish Christians spread into certian places in Syria and Damascus John the Apostle was known to have went to Asia Minor where he taught as his student Polycarp who had some battles with what at the time was Gentile Christianity in Rome over Passover that is what was the correct date of Passover the Christians that come from John the Apostle and Polycarp are known as Quartodecimans that is because they kept the Passover on the 14th of Abib of the Jewish calender . The Quartodecimans and the Jewish Christian Ebionites and Jewish Christian Nazareans where considered Heretics by the Roman Church at the Council of Niecia in the 320 s Ad .

[Firehawk4]

Polycarp lived to about the 150 s Ad and had some conflicts with the Roman Church over Passover so did a another Bishop called Polycrates with Roman Bishop Victor in Rome over Passover in the 160s Ad Bishop Victor excumunicated the Qartodeciman Christians in Asia Minor the modern Western Part of Turkey these Quartodecimans did not listen to Bishop Victor instead the Quartodeciman Christian kept there beliefs in there own Churches in Asia Minor in the second Century .The one thing that is strange is that the first time a Bishop of the Roman Church is called Pope is not until the 300 s Ad before that the Roman Church just had Bishops and a College of Presberters that led there church , The Roman Church claims there Authority on the Basis that Peter the Apostle gave all his power and authority as the head Apostle to a successor named Linus in Rome but there is no proof that Peter was ever in Rome , why would some Bishop in Rome be head of the Church in about 68 Ad after Peter died when there where other Apostles still alive like the Apostle John who was supposed to have lived to about 110 Ad in Asia Minor would not John be head of the Church . The Bible says that the Church isbuilt on the Foundations of the Apostles and Prophets with Jesus Christ being the Cheif corner stone there for Jesus Christ is the head of the Church , then the Bible gives a list of those as heads in the Church first is the Apostles and then Prophets and then Bishops and Evangilist and others so if some Bishop in Rome named Linus or the second Bishop Rome named Clement was made Bishop of Rome by Peter and Peter gave all his Authority to these Bishops of Rome while any of the other Apostles was alive goes agianst what the Bible says about the Apostles being heads first in the Church then Prophets then Bishops , I think That John was the head of the Church while he was alive in Asia Minor becuase the other Apostles had died at that time, where John has been known to have been directing the Churches there and instructing Polycarp his student who became a Bishop in Asia Minor . But Jesus is really the Head of the Church .

[Ben Gash]

The original gospels were written in Greek, and the word we know know as "leprosy" (sp?) wasn't confined to just that disease at the time in Greek. It meant any skin infection or ailment. Of course, any skin condition meant a person was "unclean" and could not make sacrifices at the temple. Jesus "healed them" making them clean so they could re-join the community (the JEWISH community) and make sacrifices


Not really a contraversial issue, there are whole chapters in the Torah dealing with the diagnosis and management of leprosy which make this quite clear. Even by our modern standards there are several forms of leprosy less severe than the Hansen's disease that leprosy evokes.
To say the gospels were written generations after Jesus is a bit of a stretch. 3 of them were written between 50-70 AD, and only John's was written later, but his is a first hand account and much more intellectually challenging, so it's conceivable it just took longer to write.
Again, it's not really contraversial to point out that the bulk of Christ's mission was to the Jews, and as such was framed in that context. Indeed, one of the big problems a lot of people have with gospel study is that they fail to comprehend that it's addressed to Jews. This is one of the major failings of the non-contextual literalism found in many so-called fundamentalist churches.
The story of Peter and Paul's missions to the gentiles is well documented in Acts, soI don't really feel inclined to go over it right now. You can read Acts here
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=1&version=50
and if you've got any specific questions that'll be cool.
The problem with a lot of "fundamentalist" christians is that they have very weak fundamentals. They're very poor on serious Bible study, and in the old testament at best they've read Psalms and half of Genesis :rolleyes: This would make them totally ill equipped to have any kind of conversation with a Rabbi.
On the original topic, perhaps these are relevant.
Mark, Chapter 9
Jesus Forbids Sectarianism

38 Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.”
39 But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. 40 For he who is not against us is on our[c] side. 41 For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.

1 Corinthians 3
Sectarianism Is Carnal
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?

[Kristoffer]

At least Palpatine had cool powers. He threw senatorial pods like paper, shot lighting and could do lots of flips with a lightsabre. What's Ratzinger done? He put on some clothes.

...like batman

[synack]

Who cares?

[Ben Gash]

3 pages worth of posters apparently :rolleyes: Not to mention millions upon millions of Christians :rolleyes:

[AJM]

I've got the real Hol- Rom-- Catho--- Church.
Benny and Saul/Paul are charletans.

[SaintSage]

On the original topic, perhaps these are relevant.
Mark, Chapter 9
Jesus Forbids Sectarianism

38 Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.”
39 But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. 40 For he who is not against us is on our[c] side. 41 For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.

1 Corinthians 3
Sectarianism Is Carnal
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?

I'm Catholic, but I almost always say "Christian" when asked. The Holy Father has the same problem I do, he's a little blunt when he feels passionate about something. In our theology, the only "Church" is the apostalic church. However, we as Catholics still consider most Protestants Christians. (The biggest excpetions are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Personaly, I don't care. I will call them brother in Christ if they will call me one.)

I hate sectarian nonsense. I don't around talking about the "d@amn Protestants," we're all Christians. Catholic means universal and that's the way I hope it can be, one united body of Christ. I wish we wouldn't even be called the Roman Catholic Church or Roman Catholics, but the Church and the Body.