New Pope Elected

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,820
Reaction score
16,080
Why would God revealing himself destroy free will?

From my understanding: If God were to show himself in frequent miracles or simply stick his head through the clouds and say "What's up Baltimore?!" then his glory and power would be such that people would have no choice but love him because (1) noseriouslyhe'ssoawesomeyouguys; and (2) who doesn't fall in line when there's a God around? The problem with that is that mandatory love isn't "real" love, and God wants love like Koon wants Pat. So instead God remains hidden and allows people to choose to love him or not.

Now if this sounds kind of dumb in a "culty" way, I can't help you.
 
Last edited:

Veritate Duce Progredi

A man gotta have a code
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,352
From my understanding: If God were to show himself in frequent miracles or simply stick his head through the clouds and say "What's up Baltimore?!" then his glory and power would be such that people would have no choice but love him because (1) noseriouslyhe'ssoawesomeyouguys; and (2) because who doesn't fall in line when there's a God around? The problem with that is that mandatory love isn't "real" love, and God wants love like Koon wants Pat. So instead God remains hidden and allows people to choose to love him or not.

Now if this sounds kind of dumb in a "culty" way, I can't help you.

Wow, I'm not even certain where I fall in the religious spectrum, albeit I'm mostly sympathetic with those who believe in God and even I feel slightly offended. Maybe I shouldn't because... the webz... but still, seems like everyone took your post amicably so you came back to jab harder?

I don't think it's absurd to theorize that if a God existed that was the source of all being and he chose to reveal his existence to you, that you'd be incapable of choosing anything other than the source of power that was before you.

Now this isn't sufficient proof to believe in God but I don't think it should be used to derogate the intelligence of those who are theists.
 

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,820
Reaction score
16,080
Wow, I'm not even certain where I fall in the religious spectrum, albeit I'm mostly sympathetic with those who believe in God and even I feel slightly offended. Maybe I shouldn't because... the webz... but still, seems like everyone took your post amicably so you came back to jab harder?

I don't think it's absurd to theorize that if a God existed that was the source of all being and he chose to reveal his existence to you, that you'd be incapable of choosing anything other than the source of power that was before you.

Now this isn't sufficient proof to believe in God but I don't think it should be used to derogate the intelligence of those who are theists.

I didn't mean to say the belief in a higher power was dumb, sorry if you took it that way. I was talking specifically about this reasoning. There are plenty of other reasons God wouldn't show himself but he asked about this particular one which I explained (lightly with other "humorous" analogies) to the best of my ability. I don't really find those reasons compelling and attempted a light jab since it appears convenient to me at best. Sorry again if I offended.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
Wow, I'm not even certain where I fall in the religious spectrum, albeit I'm mostly sympathetic with those who believe in God and even I feel slightly offended. Maybe I shouldn't because... the webz... but still, seems like everyone took your post amicably so you came back to jab harder?

I don't think it's absurd to theorize that if a God existed that was the source of all being and he chose to reveal his existence to you, that you'd be incapable of choosing anything other than the source of power that was before you.

Now this isn't sufficient proof to believe in God but I don't think it should be used to derogate the intelligence of those who are theists.

I don't think there was anything to get offended at there, Veri. Not because it's just the webz, but because it's fair for greyhammer to express his thoughts just as its fair for you to do the same. He wasn't calling people that believed it "dumb", he was referring to the act in it's entirety and how it seemed "cultish".

To that extent, I am actually in the same boat. I don't believe a miracle happened and see this as a slight of hand spectacle. I like the Pope and don't care if he partook in the charade, but I see it as just that... a charade.

edit - To add, can someone shed some light on this relic. How does it even exist. St Gennaro died in 305AD, correct? So you are telling me that a woman gathered his blood for a relic over 1,700 years ago and sealed it so well that it didn't evaporate or deteriorate in that time? It just sat in a coagulated state in an elaborate gold relic? Is that even scientifically possible that it could have lasted that long, nonetheless be brought back into a liquid state by a "miracle"?
 
Last edited:

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,964
Reaction score
6,452
1). dried blood in a relatively sealed container [no light and no humidity for the vast majority of the time] could very well survive the centuries --- we have some "ordinary" archaeological artifacts that have tissues and dried blood from way back.

2). "evaporate" is a word which usually means turn from liquid to gas, but "blood" would not without some serious microbiological attack turn entirely into gas; its water might, but not all of the "blood" substance.

3). the whole point of featuring this thing as a miracle is that the claim [if true] DEFIES "scientific" reasons. If it didn't no one would be using the term "miracle".

4). the feeling of the question is how could any old-time person make a superiorly sealed glass container. I have several Roman era glass vessels in my personal collection, and they are soundly made. So the question would be how did the ancients seal things? Very early technology for this used things like bitumen/tar or tree sap, or, ironically, blood. Wax seals came into vogue for practical "royal" use and many wax seals stayed intact for centuries. A vessel CAN be sealed effectively but the issue is how pervious is the sealant? Tarry substances certainly would remain within, as would anything not overly volatile. Sealed vessels therefore could sustain over the centuries if treated gently --- something that almost by definition would be true of a "holy relic". The question then is really: how OLD is this thing? Dating the artifact would jump past most of the more trivial guesswork and get the exploration on a more firm data-driven level.


p.s. I too thought that the "dumb culty-ness" characterization of a theological argument time-honored by theologians of many different religions for a very long time came across a bit harsher than our discussion warranted.
 
Last edited:

Veritate Duce Progredi

A man gotta have a code
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,352
I don't think there was anything to get offended at there, Veri. Not because it's just the webz, but because it's fair for greyhammer to express his thoughts just as its fair for you to do the same. He wasn't calling people that believed it "dumb", he was referring to the act in it's entirety and how it seemed "cultish".

To that extent, I am actually in the same boat. I don't believe a miracle happened and see this as a slight of hand spectacle. I like the Pope and don't care if he partook in the charade, but I see it as just that... a charade.

edit - To add, can someone shed some light on this relic. How does it even exist. St Gennaro died in 305AD, correct? So you are telling me that a woman gathered his blood for a relic over 1,700 years ago and sealed it so well that it didn't evaporate or deteriorate in that time? It just sat in a coagulated state in an elaborate gold relic? Is that even scientifically possible that it could have lasted that long, nonetheless be brought back into a liquid state by a "miracle"?

Understood Wooly, I didn't say he's not allowed to state his opinion. I simply said that most didn't bat an eye when he called the "miracle" into question but then he came back and sh!t on something that seems a credible reason why God would not intervene or show himself to the world, I thought it a bit derisive in an otherwise amicable back and forth.

You believe that religious figures who've devoted their lives to pursuing the face of God, on a whim or perhaps great malice aforethought, decide to engage in deception? For what purpose? To strengthen the faith of their opiate-d masses? I see no practical or moral purpose for this "sleight of hand" that you suggest. I'm not calling it a miracle but to call it a charade seems a bit facile, no?

Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps religion really is all about power and control and subversion and anachronistic traditions used to subdue or trick it's adherents. I have a difficult time reconciling that with the history of the Church, even it's bad parts.
 

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,820
Reaction score
16,080
Understood Wooly, I didn't say he's not allowed to state his opinion. I simply said that most didn't bat an eye when he called the "miracle" into question but then he came back and sh!t on something that seems a credible reason why God would not intervene or show himself to the world, I thought it a bit derisive in an otherwise amicable back and forth.

I'm sorry for getting back in this ahead of time but.... Make no mistake, I was strongly disagreeing with (or "shitt!ing on") the line of reasoning I explained earlier. It doesn't pass my most generous smell test and I honestly considered it a borderline insulting answer when it was first explained to me in Sunday school years ago. My description of this reasoning obviously struck several of you as harsh, but I honestly do believe that the explanation sounds like something a cult leader would say to a questioning follower. "The invisible man doesn't show himself to anyone because its your uncertain faith in his existence that he likes/relies upon." Is there a way to call something cult-like without sounding insulting?

I do want to say one thing about the "cult" statement though. I suspect that some of you find this label insulting because you assume that if the logic in this particular argument is "cult", so must the motivations of the people in charge be disingenuous and the beliefs of the followers be naive. Please don't jump to the conclusion that just because I said that this particular argument struck me as horribly wrong, that I'm saying that all Christianity or religions are a cult. I'm not.

I did and do apologize if you thought I was calling people who believe in God stupid though. That was not my intent.
 

Veritate Duce Progredi

A man gotta have a code
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,352
I'm sorry for getting back in this ahead of time but.... Make no mistake, I was strongly disagreeing with (or "shitt!ing on") the line of reasoning I explained earlier. It doesn't pass my most generous smell test and I honestly considered it a borderline insulting answer when it was first explained to me in Sunday school years ago. My description of this reasoning obviously struck several of you as harsh, but I honestly do believe that the explanation sounds like something a cult leader would say to a questioning follower. "The invisible man doesn't show himself to anyone because its your uncertain faith in his existence that he likes/relies upon." Is there a way to call something cult-like without sounding insulting?

I do want to say one thing about the "cult" statement though. I suspect that some of you find this label insulting because you assume that if the logic in this particular argument is "cult", so must the motivations of the people in charge be disingenuous and the beliefs of the followers be naive. Please don't jump to the conclusion that just because I said that this particular argument struck me as horribly wrong, that I'm saying that all Christianity or religions are a cult. I'm not.

I did and do apologize if you thought I was calling people who believe in God stupid though. That was not my intent.

I think Mike and I were the only ones who didn't make that mistake. I understand what you are saying, I simply don't agree in your quick dismissal.

The Observer effect is taken at face value in science and I think it has some parallel in this discussion. Theists simply believe that God's Observer effect would be far more pronounced were He to make an "intrusive" observation in this world.

Can you imagine a God or being or energy source that is all powerful? One responsible for all that exists. If that God/being/energy source were to make it's presence known, it's hard to imagine someone maintaining a flippant, autonomous stance. This doesn't prove God exists, neither can it be used to disprove the existence of such a being. I also recognize that this logic could be used conveniently for any number of things but then you'd have to wonder why it was being employed.


Stolen from Wikipedia:
In the sociological classifications of religious movements, a cult is a religious or social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices.The word "cult" has always been controversial because it is (in a pejorative sense) considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups with differing doctrines or practices, which lacks a clear or consistent definition

Calling the explanation dumb in a culty way and then letting us all know that our intelligence hasn't matured to your early Sunday School days is not an especially shrewd tactic. Although point taken: you can't accept it because, like all petulant children, you want what you want. And you want God to either show himself or to be considered DOA.

I can find many more things to disagree with when it comes to religion but I had always believed this point beyond dispute. One of us is wrong, I'm just having a tough time trying to reconcile if I'm wrong because I'm allowing logic to diminish common sense or if you're wrong because you are so dismissive of a logical reason.

I'll continue to assess my position.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Scary great.
No scary scary. I have no problem with the Pope advocating for environmental stewardship. Wonderful. Advocating for a lay central authority with enforcement power over the entire world? That's scary scary.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
No scary scary. I have no problem with the Pope advocating for environmental stewardship. Wonderful. Advocating for a lay central authority with enforcement power over the entire world? That's scary scary.

You might be over exaggerating a bit, no?
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
No scary scary. I have no problem with the Pope advocating for environmental stewardship. Wonderful. Advocating for a lay central authority with enforcement power over the entire world? That's scary scary.

Well that's never going to happen. But I love that the Pope trusts scientists and is being forceful about things that truly impact hundreds of millions of lives.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
You might be over exaggerating a bit, no?
That's what he said. It was a quote.

Francis also called for a new global political authority tasked with “tackling … the reduction of pollution and the development of poor countries and regions”.

A noble goal, to be sure. But we all know how trustworthy bureaucrats are when tasked with a noble goal.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
That's what he said. It was a quote.



A noble goal, to be sure. But we all know how trustworthy bureaucrats are when tasked with a noble goal.

Geez.... he's just saying a task force with global responsibilities. He wasn't trying to create an environmental czar with ruling authority over the entire world. You are taking his comment out of context.
 

notredomer23

Staph Member
Messages
17,633
Reaction score
17,557
I took what he said no different than any of the G8 summits or another function of the UN. Though I can see where you are coming from.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,944
Reaction score
11,225
70% of the footnotes in Laudato Si are to the writings of JPII and Benedict XVI. There's nothing in there that hasn't been part of Catholic teaching for decades already.

So you're saying The Vatican has been attempting to take over the world for decades already??
 
Last edited:

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
So you're saying The Vatican has been attempting to take over the world for decades already??

#Pentaverate

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FveBzGMD6zw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

ND NYC

New member
Messages
3,571
Reaction score
209
well ,something needs to be done.

there is zero doubt (in my mind) global warming/climate change (whatever you want to call it) exists, is getting worse, and is and will continue to be the biggest problem all citizens of the world face now and in the future.

of course, our US politicians will poo-poo it all, telling him to "stick to religion" rather than actually doing something; whilst they "legislate" under the cover of their politically useful beliefs.

oh, the irony....
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,576
Reaction score
20,026
well ,something needs to be done.

there is zero doubt (in my mind) global warming/climate change (whatever you want to call it) exists, is getting worse, and is and will continue to be the biggest problem all citizens of the world face now and in the future.

of course, our US politicians will poo-poo it all, telling him to "stick to religion" rather than actually doing something; whilst they "legislate" under the cover of their politically useful beliefs.

oh, the irony....

While the extremist exaggerate their claims. ;)

Now back to the pope.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
The NYT's Ross Douthat just published an article titled "The End of the Sex Abuse Scandal":

The conversation about Catholicism and Pope Francis is about to be dominated by the topics of the environment and climate change, thanks to tomorrow’s (official; there have been leaks) release of the pontiff’s ecological encyclical, Laudato Si. But let me sneak in a belated comment on last week’s news that the Vatican is setting up a tribunal to handle accusations of negligence by bishops in sex abuse cases, with coincided, probably not coincidentally, with the resignations of the archbishop of Minneapolis-St. Paul and his auxiliary over their handling of a now-defrocked predator priest.

When the Francis era began, I wrote a column and then a blog post arguing that nothing in his pontificate would matter nearly as much as the restoration of moral credibility, the lifting of scandal’s shadow, and that Bergoglio/Francis would be judged above all on whether he took concrete steps to bring accountability not only to abusive priests (where the church had taken most of the necessary steps under Benedict) but to those bishops and cardinals who protected them (where it conspicuously had not). I’m not sure if the sweep of my judgment quite holds up given all the other issues that this very active pontiff has stirred up or may stir up soon. But the basic point still holds: The reason the sex abuse issue was a crisis for the church rather than just a scandal was that it exposed systemic failures of governance within the Catholic hierarchy, systemic culpability on the part of the episcopate, and neither Rome nor the bishops themselves seemed to have any kind of response that wasn’t ad hoc, situational, and self-protective.

So for the sex abuse crisis to actually end, as opposed to just sort of gradually petering out as offending bishops aged and died and disappeared, something needed to be done to insure that nothing so systematic could happen again. And the mechanisms established under the last pope, while appropriate and admirable, were not sufficient to this task, because they only applied to abusive priests rather than encompassing the blindness and arrogance and fecklessness that kept those priests in the ministry.

Now, though, it seems like the church will finally have a mechanism fitted to those sins. Francis had already moved personally to remove a handful of bishops, but those moves probably personalized the process unduly, turning the pontiff into a kind of one-man supreme court, and inspiring talk of enemies’ lists among (mostly traditionalist) Catholics skeptical of his choice of targets. Such talk will accompany the operations of the tribunal, too, no doubt, but a formal process will at least minimize it, and hopefully lend some transparency to the path from complaints to resignations.

Of course how the path will work is still uncertain; whether it will be confined (or should be confined) to problems related to sex abuse is also a good and weighty question. As with every Vatican response to the sex abuse scandal, the new tribunal promises to centralize power further within the church, which to some extent an ironic result given this pontiff’s (at least rhetorical) bias toward decentralization and the importance of ecclesiastical “peripheries.” And such centralization will no doubt have unforeseeable consequences: There may come a time, in this pontificate or another, where this move turns out to have implications for other forms of policing from Rome, other reasons for disciplining and removing bishops, at which point the list of people championing a strong hand in the Vatican may grow somewhat shorter than today.

But whatever consequences await the church in the future, after the long Lent Catholics (especially American Catholics) endured in the last decade this is a necessary, important, and I think morally-essential step. It will not end sexual scandals in the church (those will never end), but it might write, at last, the last chapter in the story of this particular era of scandal-driven crisis. Depending on how you feel about Benedict XVI you can see it either as Francis finishing his predecessor’s impressive (if belated) work on sex abuse or taking the crucial step that Benedict wasn’t bold enough to take; both readings contain elements of the truth. But either way this pontiff deserves great credit, and the promise, finally, of systematic accountability for bishops will loom large in Francis’s legacy whatever else comes next.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
"What's behind the White House's invite to Catholic dissenters?"

The White House will host a welcoming ceremony for Pope Francis next week, but it has invited several LGBT activist allies who are working to target Catholic beliefs and to influence the Synod on the Family.

On Sept. 23, the White House will host hundreds of people on the South Lawn for a welcoming ceremony for Pope Francis’ first visit to the U.S. as Roman Pontiff. The Pope and Ppresident Barack Obama will then have a private meeting.

The White House directly invited some guests to the ceremony, including former Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson. His election as the first openly gay Episcopalian bishop helped split the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.

The White House also invited the LGBT activist group GLAAD to the reception. GLAAD’s Sept. 16 announcement of the invitation asked its allies to “Help send a message to Pope Francis” by taking part in an advocacy campaign.

GLAAD has released a media guide for the papal visit that encourages journalists to consult dissenting Catholic groups. It also portrays negatively several Catholic bishops and Catholic commentators and researchers who are opposed to LGBT political aims. Its guide seeks sympathetic press attention for employees of Catholic institutions fired for violating Catholic moral standards.

The media guide criticized Catholic groups such as Courage, which supports people with same-sex attraction to live chastely. The GLAAD guide contended that Catholic teaching can be “extremely harmful” to young people who identify as LGBT.

Other guests to the reception were invited by other leaders or groups.

GLAAD said that they would be joined at the White House by Frank DeBernardo, executive director of the dissenting Catholic activist group New Ways Ministry, and Sister Jeannine Gramick, S.L., the organization’s co-founder. New Ways Ministry received a specific rebuke from the Vatican in 1999, when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith permanently barred Sister Gramick from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons. In February 2010, then-president of the U.S. Bishops’ Conference Cardinal Francis George of Chicago said the group rejects central aspects of Catholic teaching.

The dissenting group Call to Action in a Sept. 14 blog post said an unnamed staffer had been invited to the reception. Mateo Williamson, a past transgender caucus co-chair with the dissenting group Dignity USA will also attend, CNSNews.com reports.

GLAAD has also invited a former intern, Nicholas Coppola. Coppola had volunteered at his New York parish and continued as a catechist after he contracted a same-sex marriage. The matter was brought to the attention of the Diocese of Rockville Centre in 2013.

Auxiliary Bishop Robert Brennan of Rockville Centre voiced concern to Coppola’s pastor that he was teaching religion to children. Coppola was removed from his position; he then launched a petition campaign protesting the action, with the aid of several activist groups.

Sean Dolan, director of communications for the Rockville Centre diocese, told the New York Times in 2013 that the Church “has the right to have people in public positions who accurately represent its teachings” and that someone who decides to enter such a union appears not to understand or follow Catholic teaching.

The papal visit comes ahead of the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia and the 2015 Synod of Bishops on the role of the family in the new evangelization. Both events have been the focus of well-funded activism.

The Arcus Foundation, which has poured millions into LGBT advocacy and efforts to counter religious freedom protections, has dedicated hundreds of thousands of dollars to projects that support LGBT activists to counter the synod. The foundation’s grantees include the Equally Blessed Coalition, whose members include New Ways Ministry, Dignity USA and Call to Action. New Ways Ministry and Dignity USA are also involved in a global network of LGBT Catholic activists which is holding an assembly and advocacy conference in Rome ahead of the synod.

In February, New Ways Ministry touted its presence at a Wednesday papal audience as unprecedented and won news headlines claiming the group had received VIP treatment. In fact, the organization took advantage of a ticketing process available to almost anyone. New Ways Ministry did not present itself as an organization, but rather identified as “a group of lay people accompanied by a Sister of Loretto.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) invited Sister Simone Campbell to attend the White House reception for Pope Francis. Sister Campbell is executive director of NETWORK Lobby. She addressed the Democratic National Convention and was a keynote speaker at the 2015 Dignity USA convention.

NETWORK Lobby helped undercut the U.S. bishops’ concerns about abortion in the 2010 health care bill backed by President Obama and other Democrats. Sister Campbell helped organize the Nuns on the Bus campaign, whose partners include the media group Faith in Public Life. That organization conducted a media campaign against the U.S. bishops’ efforts to defend religious freedom in the ongoing controversy over mandated insurance coverage for drugs and procedures that violate Catholic morals.

The White House wouldn't dare treat any other visiting religious leader with such blatant contempt. I hope the Vatican responds appropriately.
 
Top